terrible maps

[agentsteel53]

I don't actually mind those shield shapes, or that font.  the font on the street names is pretty crap, though.

[vtk]

...and to add insult to injury, it uses US-style shields for every state route!

Yeah, not only are the shields bad, but they also left off the roadnames for each of those highways.  I'm assuming locals would typically refer to those roads not by their highway number, but rather by their names, "Broad", "Main", etc. correct?

Maybe not that far east.  IIRC, Broad St becomes Columbus Rd, and Main St becomes National Rd.  I suspect people just use the route numbers out there.  161 is a freeway, and I think that Worthington Rd is the new name for old 161.

[ibagli]

161 is a freeway, and I think that Worthington Rd is the new name for old 161.

Worthington Road was the old name too. Some parts got new names (I think one is called Moots Run Road) when they were made into dead ends because of the freeway.

[Central Avenue]

Even before the bypass was built, I would often hear people refer to Worthington Road simply as "One Sixty-One",  for whatever reason.

Actually, I don't have a problem with that simplified geometry; it makes it less confusing for people who just want to figure out their sequence of left and right turns.  The only reason I-270 is curved is because everyone knows it's a circle, and the curvature gives an intuitive hint as to which side of Columbus we're looking at.

Fair enough. Personally, I find it makes things a bit more confusing, since it makes roads appear parallel that aren't, but I've had a lifelong fixation with maps, so I won't pretend the way I look at them is representative of the general public.

I don't actually mind those shield shapes, or that font.  the font on the street names is pretty crap, though.

I don't mind the shield shape either. It's just that the roadgeek in me gets miffed at OH 16 and OH 310 getting US shields.

[vtk]

Maybe not "terrible", but should we expect better from a DOT?



What's most irksome about this is the huge gap between 70/71 and Fulton St (they are actually adjacent) and the distorted ramps which result from that.  Also, they messed up the name of Rich St — Main St Connector both on the map and in the directions for the detour.

[jeffandnicole]

Reopening this topic...

A Kohls near my had a Grand Reopening recently (for those of you that shop there, the nicest change was moving the customer service area to the front of the story, not the back!).  Here's the map they published for people to find it:



And here's an actual map of the area:



Now, to those unfamiliar with the area, maybe it does appear the NJ Turnpike is very close to the store.  And I'm sure someone from Kohls looked at the Google Maps you see above and drew up their map bsed on that.  Except...the store is over 2 miles away from the NJ Turnpike...and even then it's an unsigned overpass! There's no actual interchange with the Turnpike (and note they use NJ Turnpike N...where the N doesn't even make sense).  It's county Rt. 632/678, not State Rt. 632/678.  And some other variables that most people not familiar with the area won't get.  But to say it's at the corner of the NJ Turnpike N is about as poor of a landmark as one would get, with the numerous stores located elsewhere in the area up and down Rt. 45.

Well, put it this way - if you know the area, the map is of no value.  If you're not from the area, maybe the route numbers would be fine...but don't start looking at the NJ Turnpike...if you even realize you're going over the highway to begin with!

[Roadrunner75]

Well, put it this way - if you know the area, the map is of no value.  If you're not from the area, maybe the route numbers would be fine...but don't start looking at the NJ Turnpike...if you even realize you're going over the highway to begin with!

Nice to see another local on here, considering I grew up a couple miles up the road at the northern end of 45.  I think the Kohl's opened well after I moved out of Gloucester County, but I remember the KMart next to it.  The "600" series County secondary road numbers mean nothing to most people.  I'm probably the only one from my home town who could identify Almonesson Road as CR 621, for example.  The road names and SR 45 do help, and agreed that showing the Turnpike does nothing for anyone except those of us who studied our Franklin Maps of Gloucester County over the years.

[PurdueBill]

Car dealer ads are where shields (everything's a warped US Route shield) and maps (no attempt at scale) and directions (we're 15 minutes from everywhere...except our competitor on the other side of town) go to die. Which is my useless pet theory of why car manufacturers really offer navigation systems...

The only map gaffe that really grates my carrot is when route shields and markers are placed right in the middle of the intersection, giving little clue as to where to go next.

I am always amazed that a Kia dealership off I-71 in Medina has authentic shield images in their map in ads, not horrible oddball ones.  The state routes are in ovals, but in Ohio, that's more forgivable than it would be in Mass where a square would be better.  (No endorsement of said dealer implied--only mentioned because I notice the shields in their ads)

[Brian556]

On the DCTA (Denton County Transportation Authority) (Texas) website, the map of their commuter rail is so bad that it does not even show the correct alignment of the tracks through Lewisville. That's right. they only have one rail line and couldn't even get it right.

Not only that, SH 121 and SH 121 BUS are shown to be US Highways, and FM 407 around Bartonville is totally wrong, and it shows FM 3040 extending W of FM 2499, which is incorrect.

https://www.dcta.net/images/uploads/content_files/a-train_files/atrainline.pdf

[kurumi]

The Connecticut Tercentenary Map (1935) is terrible. Here's a scan from an ebay seller: http://www.jumpingfrog.com/images/epm14mar12/mmm2021b.jpg

It's touristy, so you can excuse lack of detail, omission of smaller routes, simplification of alignment, even missing changes less than a year out; but this map has so. many. typos. Just from the partial scan area, you can find:

CT 114 as "111"
US 6 overlaps CT 69 north of Waterbury
CT 10A as "104"
CT 122 as "6" - what?
Part of CT 175 as "75"
Part of CT 190 as "90"
CT 160 as "60"
Part of CT 83 as "82"
CT 141 as "142"
CT 148 as "82"

Were the mapmakers working off a handwritten original?

[vtk]

Lately I've become more and more dissatisfied with ODOT's 2011 highway map (that's the latest edition!) and the 2012 rail map.

The highway map was issued in 2011, prominently featuring the new governor and lt. governor.  I suspect that was the primary motivation.  No style changes were made over the 2009 edition, though notable changes to the highway system in 2009 and 2010 are shown.  Old errors persist.  The map claims to be valid for 2011—2013; it is now 2014 and no new map has been issued.  I could list several faults with the map, but they're pretty much all just symptoms of a mechanical execution with no attention given to improving clarity or aesthetics.

The rail map is dated 2012, but it's really just the 2011 highway map with the highways rendered in gray and black lines, and railroads overlaid in thick colored lines.  I'm sure the lines are so thick for the sole purpose of making them stand out compared to the highways, but this reduces clarity at junctions; the highways should have been made thinner and/or lighter instead.  The city insets on the back are, again, grayscale versions of their highway map counterparts, with colored lines overlaid for the railroads.  Where CSX and NS tracks run adjacent in Columbus, the map avoids drawing one atop the other by fudging the geometry, allowing the thick lines to run side by side.  However, rather than simply adjust the map artwork, they adjusted the base GIS data, separating the tracks by about a mile.  On the front this looks okay, but in the Columbus inset, it makes the lines physically separated, one of them appearing to be on the wrong side of I-71.  I'm not entirely sure what audience this map is intended for.