What do you think of these tee signs?

[Rastnav]

My point in changing the white background to green, was to allow for white lines. If you don't/can't go with lines, it doesn't matter.

Our (private) course has 2 overlapping layouts, which are much more confusing than these. We created course maps that only show one layout each, and tell people that if they see something that's no on the map, it's the other layout. With signs showing hole numbers & layout, and baskets showing hole numbers, it seems to work pretty well.

I'm not sure if that will work any better for you, or not.

Yeah, I understood you to be saying that each line would be colored to show which layout it corresponded to. Coloring the background to allow for white lines makes sense. I thought circles might also make it clear, without the potential clutter that can come with lines. Trying both ideas out is cheap, just a little bit of my time. Sort of a "measure 50 times, cut once" approach.

We are trialing these signs as simply printed, laminated paper first. So really we can do whatever we want. I'm not aware of anyone opposed to showing lines, but we can cross that bridge if we come to it.

 

[HyooMac]

Regarding the match/mismatch of colors (the "white" layout playing to the yellow basket, etc.).

I played Bull Run Regional Park on Saturday, and although they use colors to describe the layouts (red and blue), they use "A" and "B" to differentiate baskets. This is helpful because some of the longer layout (blue) baskets are temporary, with a variety of different shapes and models. But once I understood that, I understood that the "B" basket was the "B" basket, regardless.

Maybe this just introduces more complexity to what you're trying to accomplish. But it seems that part of the problem you have is going to be consistently connecting the layout color with the basket color.

 

[Rastnav]

Regarding the match/mismatch of colors (the "white" layout playing to the yellow basket, etc.).

I played Bull Run Regional Park on Saturday, and although they use colors to describe the layouts (red and blue), they use "A" and "B" to differentiate baskets. This is helpful because some of the longer layout (blue) baskets are temporary, with a variety of different shapes and models. But once I understood that, I understood that the "B" basket was the "B" basket, regardless.

Maybe this just introduces more complexity to what you're trying to accomplish. But it seems that part of the problem you have is going to be consistently connecting the layout color with the basket color.

Honestly, I think this is more of an issue when looking at the tee sign in isolation, rather than while standing at the tee pad.

I don't think one is ever confused by color difference when looking at a standard yellow banded Discatcher that's on the White layout when they are actually playing disc golf. It's just when you start having to describe it that the color clashes get confusing.

If instead they were referred to as Short, Standard and Long (or Rec, Intermediate, Advanced) that would go away. "The Advanced layout is playing to the blue basket on this hole" is a sentence that tracks far better.

But, it's good to take into consideration so that we make the tee signs as clear as possible, even when previewing the course online.

 

[Tripper]

I'm not sure when you've been out there last, but a ton of work has gone into the course in the last two years. (all hail Mike Weeks). There is now quite a bit of signage that both mark and distinguish the various tee pads as well as provide direction to the next hole. (Also, all of the advanced tee pads have been redone from rubber to turf, and some new long tee positions have been put in.)

It should be relatively easily navigable for anyone who has played out there before and knows what's up with the rec course. One of the biggest issue still remaining is getting tee signs that accurately reflect the long tees and baskets. We have temp tee signs that textually describe what's going on, and this is the next step, so we are ready once we have a few more layout changes complete and we can get approval for permanent tee signs.

If you have played it this year, do you remember what you still found confusing?

I played there just a few weeks ago and have played many times in the last couple of years. Navigation is much better now but when the tees were still being improved it was challenging particularly "the Hill" tees.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Another thought might be to make the map background light green, instead of white; and add lines of flight paths (blue, white, & red) to connect tees to baskets.

Or, if not lines for flight paths, the outlines of the intended fairway from that particular sign. For example: on the 2/2/3 sign only outline the intended fairway for those three plays off that pad, excluding the outline from the tepid they're not playing from.

I'll use my current project as an example. See the attached images.

For the tee sign for Hole 7 I only outline the fairway that is being played from that particular tee. I'm not including the fairway shape from the short tee. I'm not including the fairway shape from hole 8 and 2's tees off to the side.

On the course map I attached you'll see that I show all the fairways as they overlap, so you can see how I used or did not use the outlines depending on the purpose of the sign.

 

[Rastnav]

Or, if not lines for flight paths, the outlines of the intended fairway from that particular sign. For example: on the 2/2/3 sign only outline the intended fairway for those three plays off that pad, excluding the outline from the tepid they're not playing from.

I'll use my current project as an example. See the attached images.

For the tee sign for Hole 7 I only outline the fairway that is being played from that particular tee. I'm not including the fairway shape from the short tee. I'm not including the fairway shape from hole 8 and 2's tees off to the side.

On the course map I attached you'll see that I show all the fairways as they overlap, so you can see how I used or did not use the outlines depending on the purpose of the sign.

Out of curiosity, what software are you using to create your hole maps?

Right now I'm just using google slides. Cheap obviously, but not as professional as what you have made.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Out of curiosity, what software are you using to create your hole maps?

Right now I'm just using google slides. Cheap obviously, but not as professional as what you have made.

Those were made in Adobe Illustrator. Definitely not the cheapest solution. A Creative Cloud subscription, without a discount, runs you about $53/month. You could probably make something as good as I have there in two months. Spend about 2 weeks on tutorials that come with the apps (they are very very good) and then 6 weeks of concentrated work to get the signs done. But there's definitely a price involved.

A free alternative I have heard really good things about is called Inkscape - a freeware vector graphics software solution. I'm guessing you could find a really good tutorial series on YouTube for it and come up with a product as good as what I shared.

I knew nothing about working with Illustrator and hadn't worked with even Photoshop in over five years. I've been learning as I go, looking up tutorials as I need to learn to do new things.

(full disclosure: initial sign design, general structure, built by Justin Gill out of Colorado area - Random Deuce Guy credit on the course map graphic - I altered all the colors and some minor structural features and made all of the maps)

 

[glassila]

Or, if not lines for flight paths, the outlines of the intended fairway from that particular sign. For example: on the 2/2/3 sign only outline the intended fairway for those three plays off that pad, excluding the outline from the tepid they're not playing from.

I'll use my current project as an example. See the attached images.

For the tee sign for Hole 7 I only outline the fairway that is being played from that particular tee. I'm not including the fairway shape from the short tee. I'm not including the fairway shape from hole 8 and 2's tees off to the side.

On the course map I attached you'll see that I show all the fairways as they overlap, so you can see how I used or did not use the outlines depending on the purpose of the sign.

The attached tee sign is about as good as it gets! :clap:
That's the most info I've ever seen on a tee sign without being confusing or overwhelming. :clap:

 

[Rastnav]

Here are a couple of new versions of the tee sign for #1. I think the flight line one works better, but it is a little more cluttered. What do other people think?

 

[Armus Patheticus]

Out of curiosity, what software are you using to create your hole maps?

Right now I'm just using google slides. Cheap obviously, but not as professional as what you have made.

Chris mentions Inkscape which is very high-quality but a little more unwieldy than Illustrator. I may have some copies of Illustrator left on flash drives, and when I get home I'll check and send one along if you'd like.

 

[Rastnav]

Chris mentions Inkscape which is very high-quality but a little more unwieldy than Illustrator. I may have some copies of Illustrator left on flash drives, and when I get home I'll check and send one along if you'd like.

Thanks for the offer. I'm not sure I'm up for that long of a ramp up time on the software though, especially given that we aren't even creating permanent signage yet.

 

[glassila]

The flight lines are an absolute necessity. The second version without the flight lines makes no sense to me.
In the version with the flight lines I don't understand the purpose of the white, blue and red arrows. If they are pointing to the next tee, why is the red arrow pointing in a different direction?

 

[Rastnav]

The flight lines are an absolute necessity. The second version without the flight lines makes no sense to me.
In the version with the flight lines I don't understand the purpose of the white, blue and red arrows. If they are pointing to the next tee, why is the red arrow pointing in a different direction?

Note that the #2 rec hole is basically the second half of white #1, you can see the #2 rec tee pad in the middle of #1s fairway. You can see in the OP what that tee sign basically would look like. The rec layout doesn't use all of the regular layouts holes.

It's not a conventional design, but it makes for a very playable rec course for lower skill levels.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Thanks for the offer. I'm not sure I'm up for that long of a ramp up time on the software though, especially given that we aren't even creating permanent signage yet.

Maybe that makes now exactly the time to get a copy. You can fiddle when you have free moments and feel like it - and when the time comes for permanent signage you'll be ready.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Here are a couple of new versions of the tee sign for #1. I think the flight line one works better, but it is a little more cluttered. What do other people think?

I think that the top of the two images is better, minus the text describing the red tee that is beneath the flight lines.

Also - Instead of the big stretched out looking graphics, why not take non-stretched and just cluster them together heavily. See the course map I posted in my post above - I have no idea if ANY of the trees at the bottom of the sign are accurately placed. I walked the course for all the trees on the layout because the layout has only sparse trees. But on a course with dense undergrowth/woods I would just overload the area with non-stretched tree elements, no need to be precise.

The attached tee sign is about as good as it gets! :clap:
That's the most info I've ever seen on a tee sign without being confusing or overwhelming. :clap:

The overall structure of it was developed by Justin Gill out of Denver area. He's incredible. I did a lot over the past 6 months to "make it my own" when his job got busy, but the general structure is all him. He wants to get his fingers into doing work within the sport, so hopefully he's able to design this kind of stuff for many communities in coming years.

 

[ChrisWoj]

A separate thought: Why refer to them as "Blue," "White," and "Rec"? If you want the appropriate skill level apparent, why not be consistent? "Pro," "Am," "Rec." Or if you think colors are sufficient - call it "Red." I do get why you'd want to make it obvious to players with no introduction to the sport that that is the one for the newbies, but I think just going with a consistent naming scheme for the tees makes good sense.

 

[Rastnav]

I think that the top of the two images is better, minus the text describing the red tee that is beneath the flight lines.

Hmmm. As Tripper noted up thread, the tee pad with a sign for #2 in the middle of the fairway can be a little confusing. I was trying to do something that would indicate it wasn't for blue/white layouts, but did apply to the rec layout. Maybe the pale red does a good enough job of that. We are going to need some sort of text on the first tee sign anyway.

Is your problem with the text that it's occluded? Or that you just think that text is generally not worth the clutter on a map?

Also - Instead of the big stretched out looking graphics, why not take non-stretched and just cluster them together heavily. See the course map I posted in my post above - I have no idea if ANY of the trees at the bottom of the sign are accurately placed. I walked the course for all the trees on the layout because the layout has only sparse trees. But on a course with dense undergrowth/woods I would just overload the area with non-stretched tree elements, no need to be precise.

Mostly I was just being lazy and trying to figure out an easy-ish way to fill the space. I've been meaning to do something different anyway, so I'll let that be my queue to make a little nicer.

A separate thought: Why refer to them as "Blue," "White," and "Rec"? If you want the appropriate skill level apparent, why not be consistent? "Pro," "Am," "Rec." Or if you think colors are sufficient - call it "Red." I do get why you'd want to make it obvious to players with no introduction to the sport that that is the one for the newbies, but I think just going with a consistent naming scheme for the tees makes good sense.

Ideally I want people to understand that the Rec Layout and the "Standard" Layout are two different courses, with different routing. I just haven't figured out a fantastic way to do that yet. Definitely some text on the first tee box could/should help, but ... we know how people are. They are going to walk up to the tee box, look at the tee sign, and that's about it.

As to the "Pro" and "Am", are Blue tees officially the "Pro" tees according to the PDGA? I couldn't come up with the official names that went with the colors on first google. I believe Green is Novice and Red is Recreational, but past that I'm not sure.

 

[itsRudy]

I'm working on some new tee signs for one of my local courses. Just want to get some general impressions of these first 3 examples. Are they clear? Do they convey information in a straightforward and pleasing manner? Do you like the general concept?

Maybe like the existing tees, some trajectory lines would help a lot.

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=3371&mode=media&start=25&page=1&cimg=67571

Put "Next" on red arrows and perhaps leave the other next arrows (of different colors) out of it. I was thoroughly baffled what the black arrow stood for.

I'm also confused why Hole #1 sign has no Tee#1, but Tee #2?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The PDGA has a good section on Course Development which includes this document on Player Skill Levels

 

[Cgkdisc]

A separate thought: Why refer to them as "Blue," "White," and "Rec"? If you want the appropriate skill level apparent, why not be consistent? "Pro," "Am," "Rec." Or if you think colors are sufficient - call it "Red." I do get why you'd want to make it obvious to players with no introduction to the sport that that is the one for the newbies, but I think just going with a consistent naming scheme for the tees makes good sense.

Pro/Am/Rec/Mens/Womens/Junior designations were getting phased out after the 90s once colors were adopted by some in the more public designer community plus being added to the PDGA course design lexicon in the early 2000s. Long/Middle/Short or Expert/Recreational for tee names might remain as "acceptable" naming designations other than colors these days. The confusion comes in when a set of tees for one color skill level to one set of baskets, say Blue, are also used for the red level skill layout playing to the green baskets. That's when defaulting to Long Blue tees might be needed in describing a non-blue-skills layout and letters for pin positions.