DOT official transportation maps

[FLRoads]

I just got the newest North Carolina official transportation map and first off, I noticed that it is for the years 2009 and 2010. It appears that they have joined many other states such as Connecticut, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Virginia (to name a few) in issuing their maps every two years.

Also, after looking through the map I noticed several errors that they did not catch such as:

-The newest portion of Interstate 74 between Laurinburg and Lumberton is not signed as such, but rather is just shown as U.S. 74.
-In the Greensboro inset the exit numbers for Interstate 40 still match the BUS Interstate 85 exit numbers east of the interchange (thought they were suppose to change them to match Interstate 40 with the re-routing of the interstate?)
-In the Huntersville inset they still show Interstate 485 (bottom of the inset) as proposed and not complete to NC 115 (they show it complete in the Charlotte inset) -Speaking of Interstate 485, it is shown ending at NC 115 as an at-grade intersection when indeed it is open as a partial interchange (in the Charlotte inset).
-U.S. 17 is still shown as partially complete around the eastern portion of Jacksonville on the main side but is shown as complete on the inset.
-U.S. 17 is shown as a full freeway from U.S. 64 in Williamston north all the way to the VA state line (albeit missing interchange boxes) when in fact it is not (except for the Elizabeth City portion).

In reviewing all of this, I starting thinking of some things that could be good to discuss on the forum:

-What is your take on the quality of state DOT maps? I know some states have more appealing maps than others (GA comes to mind as not having an appealing map). 

-What are your thoughts on states now releasing their official maps on a bi-annual basis? Is it good or bad?

-What errors/blunders have you caught on state DOT maps that even their own cartographers cannot catch (or perhaps do not know about)? 



 

[corco]

Quality of DOT maps vary hilariously.

Maybe I'm biased, but I think Washington State has the best and most legible DOT map of all, with all routes marked clearly. Texas is quite good as well for a state of its size.

States with denser systems like Virginia tend to suffer (my main priority with route maps is wanting to know what route is what, haviing all routes marked, and having it clear which line the shield corresponds with).

My least favorite, I think, is West Virginia, at least of the 2006-2007 variety. There's lots of unnecessary lines and very little differentiation between state and non-state highways.

I've found that western states tend to do a better job, and I think that's got a lot to do with highway system density.


As far as biannual publication- now that we've gotten to a point where the road system is pretty much developed, there aren't a lot of year to year changes and I can totally understand where annual publication of a new map doesn't make sense.

My favorite error is that Coeur d'Alene is misspelled on the Idaho DOT map.

[Bryant5493]

-What is your take on the quality of state DOT maps? I know some states have more appealing maps than others (GA comes to mind as not having an appealing map).

I think Georgia has a good quality map. I may be a bit biased, being from Georgia.

-What are your thoughts on states now releasing their official maps on a bi-annual basis? Is it good or bad?

With the kinds of construction that goes on, routes change direction or cease to exist altogether. So, it could be bad if you have maps released bi-annually.

-What errors/blunders have you caught on state DOT maps that even their own cartographers cannot catch (or perhaps do not know about)?

On the Georgia map I have, Herschel Road is spelled wrong. Herschel Road carries S.R. 279 between US 29/SR 14 (Roosevelt Highway) and Old National Highway. Herschel is spelled "Hershel" on the map. I've seen a lot folks spell it like that, even those that live on the street.

Also, S.R. 139 in Cobb County is still listed as being called Gordon Road. It's now called Mableton Parkway, from the Chattahoochee River west to U.S. 78/278/S.R. 8 (Veterans Memorial Highway/Old Bankhead Highway).


Be well,

Bryant

[74/171FAN]

First the DOTs need to save money and making maps is cheaper if done less often  Errors I've caught on Virginia's map(latest 2008-2010 edition)

"Downtown Norfolk" inset shows US 58 and VA 337 multiplexing until St. Paul's Blvd where US 58 and US 460 are shown multiplexing up St. Paul's Blvd to Va Beach Blvd; however, US 58 turns at Duke St to get to Va Beach Blvd without a US 460 multiplex(this error actually messed me up on a road trip once but I still went my planned route along VA 337 to St. Paul's Blvd to I-264)

"Fredericksburg" inset shows a VA 3 CONN where VA 3 is and VA 3 where VA 3 Business is

"Hampton Roads" inset still shows former VA 167 and no interchange for US 13/US 58/US 460(Suffolk Bypass) at VA 10/VA 32

"Richmond/Petersburg/Colonial Heights/Hopewell" shows VA 76 as a two-lane toll road west of VA 288

The Staunton Loop is still shown as VA 262 and VA 275 while it is now only VA 262

The Dulles Greenway is shown with no number even though it is VA 267

"Harrisonburg" inset shows VA 253 ending at VA 276 even though it goes to US 340(right on state map)

VA 163 in Lynchburg still has the 2-lane US Route color(as it used to be US 29 Business) and SRs 640 and 2000 in Prince William County(no reason here).  For awhile this was the case for VA 293 in Danville.

US 58 BUS in Danville is only marked as US 58

[ComputerGuy]

WA 2008-09:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/highwaymap/

[yanksfan6129]

I myself just sent away for about 15 new DOT maps. I've never done this before. I hope they look good!

[Alex]

I myself just sent away for about 15 new DOT maps. I've never done this before. I hope they look good!

I regularly order DOT maps every year or so. In the last two months I've received maps for AR ('08), SC ('09), NC ('09), TN ('09), and OK ('09). I also try to pick up new maps at welcome centers or tourist information centers. No new maps yet for AL, MS, LA. Did pick up the '09 for VA in December but unfortunately the '09 MD was not out then, neither was a new map for DE.

[74/171FAN]

Quote
Did pick up the '09 for VA

Are you sure it was an '09 and not just a "rebranded" '08?

The latest Virginia map is 2008-2010 not 2009-2010 FYI

[Scott5114]

Can't say I blame DOTs for going to a biannual publishing cycle. OK generally goes biannual, but 2007 and 2008 both got their own map so the '07 could be a Centennial Edition. And as it so happens, as far as I can tell, there was exactly 1 change from the 2008 to the 2009-10 map. Highway systems just don't change as quickly as they did back in the day.

OK has a great state map, IMO. Worst one I've seen is Louisiana's. Come on, all-caps Zapf Chancery for parish names?

[usends]

Colorado has been publishing maps every-other-year since the mid-1990s.  In an interesting contrast: from about 1966-1984, Colorado actually published two maps per year: the so-called "Winter edition" and the "Summer edition".

Corco (downthread) mentioned the quality of Washington's DOT map.  I agree, and I can point to a reason for that: WSDOT employs an actual cartographer to do its maps.  This is in contrast to most other DOT's, who have plenty of GIS people, but few (if any) cartographic experts... not to mention experts in desktop publishing and pre-press.

Colorado is a classic case-in-point: the quality of their DOT map went down when they switched to digital output from a GIS (about 1998).  The latest issue has seen some improvements, but there are still so many things that could be better from a cartographic perspective.  My biggest pet-peeve is that two-lane highways appear more prominent in the visual hierarchy than do 4-lane divided highways (non-interstate).

Whenever a new CDOT map prints, I look at it pretty carefully, and over the past 3 or 4 releases, I've sent CDOT probably 10-or-so corrections.  They appreciate it, but it's frustrating that those errors sit there for two more years, until the next issue gets printed.

[dpatrickallen]

Michigan used to publish maps every other year, but fairly recently went back to annual maps.  I like the annual maps, but I can certainly understand why many states are going to every other year.

In my opinion, the quality of the MDOT map has improved quite a bit the last few years.  I do wish that it was a little bigger though.

[tdindy88]

Indiana DOT maps have changed very little over the years, except for it now being digital based. My only peeve about their maps is I wish that the urban areas were covered a little better, the Indianapolis inset has remained the same for many years and doesn't include any of the suburban counties.

Though like Indiana, I have a few other older state maps and I've noticed how a lot of states do have similar styles even back then. I have always prefered DOT maps over other nationalized maps like AAA and Rand McNally if nothing else than for the individual style of each map, they are each different in how they look and appear and so far I haven't seen one state map that has the same style in their map as another. Each state makes the map to fit it and I have always liked that personality.

On a side note, about Georgia's map, my only complant is the fact that Georgia apparently can't have longer state route circle markers as evident by a lot of the highways I see with the numbers spilling out of the circle and onto the rest of the map. So I see things like 3-digit highways barely fitting into the circle, and when you add a Loop or Business route into the mix, it doesn't fit the circle anymore. And then there's multiplexes. Very unprofessional looking and the only state I've seen that for.

[BigMattFromTexas]

I myself just sent away for about 15 new DOT maps. I've never done this before. I hope they look good!

Mine look fine I enjoy getting maps, I got five in one day one time!
I have a total of 23 DOT state maps and I plan on getting more.

BigMatt

[yanksfan6129]

Thanks, BigMatt, good to know.

I'm looking forward to begin receiving some hopefully tomorrow. (Or am I being optimistic by giving 3 days).

[Bryant5493]

^^ You've a good reason for your optimism. I received two or three DOT maps within a three-to-four day period.


Be well,

Bryant

[yanksfan6129]

good to hear my optimism isn't unfounded!

[74/171FAN]

I've sent off for the new NCDOT map and I want to make sure I get the NCDOT map before I send off for others

[roadfro]

Nevada DOT has been publishing its maps every two years for some time now.  The first two-year NDOT maps were the 1961-62, 1963-64 and 1965-66 editions, with the two-year publication cycle becoming permanent beginning with the 1976-77 edition.  1982 had its own map, which showed the final results of the state highway renumbering project (the 1978-79 and 1980-81 editions showed old and new numbers during the transition period)--there was also a separate 1999 map issued between the 1998-99 and 2000-01 versions, for reason's not readily apparent.

Overall, NDOT's map quality is fairly good.  The current design of the map has stayed relatively constant since the 1993-94 edition--slight layout/color tweaks, the addition of a Carson City inset, and the reintroduction of the Interstate interchange mileage chart being the only major modifications in the ensuing years.  The symbols and markings used are quite clear.  It shows many of the paved and non-paved roads of semi-importance in the rural areas of the state, even though most are not maintained by NDOT.  I've never caught a major error in any version of the map since 2000.

In NDOT's case, their map is a travel guide as well.  State/National recreation areas are shown on the map with an index of amenities, and the reverse side lists tourist information, points of interest and other tidbits for both the urbanized and rural areas of the state.  NDOT's maps are compiled for free distribution (I believe, through a joint effort with the Nevada Commission on Tourism), so it's probably a good thing they only publish them on two-year cycles since they don't get any money from them.

EDIT: If you're interested, most of NDOT's map collection (dating back to 1917 when the department was proposing its first routes) has been scanned and is offered on their website and through the UNR library online map collection (at higher quality).

[BigMattFromTexas]

I have 20 Official State Highway Maps from different states and I have about 10 Texas maps
I have six Official Texas Travel Guides and one from North Dakota
BigMatt

[yanksfan6129]

I got three maps in the mail today: North Carolina, Delaware, and Wisconsin.

I am still expecting at least twenty other maps!

[slinky]

Say what you want about their road quality, but map-quality-wise I've always been impressed by Pennsylvania.  Large state but it has just the right amount of detail.  If you want a fun challenge, try taking one of their non-marked roads from town to town.  I've found this is not as hard as I thought it would be- mostly you can follow the signs with various towns on them to know you're going the right way.

Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont are also up there for me.  I agree that the small states often do a good job.

New Jersey is OK, could be better.  I don't like the complete lack of secondary county roads.  The 5-series roads are all there, but no 6-series.   The detail of North Jersey is nice, but South Jersey is really lacking.

Not at all a fan of New York, Virginia, or West Virginia. West Virginia is the biggest disappointment since, being a smaller state, it shouldn't have a problem putting out a quality map.

I like to do what I call the AAA test.  If I like a state DOT map better than the AAA version, it passes.  If not, it fails.  This determines what my "go-to" maps are in the car for any particular area.

Pass:  PA, DE, MD, VT, CT, RI, MA
Fail: NJ (close to a draw though), NY, VA, WV

[74/171FAN]

I haven't got NC yet but I've sent off for PA and Yanksfan: How long did it take for you to get your NC map?

[BigMattFromTexas]

I got Minnesota and Oklahoma today
I ordered a Arizona, Maryland, and a California map today(4/24/09)
BigMatt

[yanksfan6129]

Took me about 4 days to get my NC map.

Today I received a Massachusetts map. It was a disappointing day: I was hoping for five new ones. Oh well, try again tomorrow.

[Scott5114]

Oh, I forgot to mention. Kansas. *drools* Oh, my God, KDOT has the best maps I've ever seen. Not only is it clear and easy to read, but the background is also a relief map. So it fades from green to orange from east to west. Unfortunately they're going to have to go back to a more standard background soon, as they got complaints from people who are red-green colorblind (primary roads are red on their map). But it's still a great map.