Incorrect highways marked on Google Maps

[Billy F 1988]

Say hello to I-311.

Well, to be fair, it is an Interstate highway, and it is numbered 311.

Well, that was fast.  It's already been fixed!

I-311? Did Google mistake that to be US 311? I don't even know if US 311 is even ready to be upgraded to Interstate status.

[Kacie Jane]

Say hello to I-311.

Well, to be fair, it is an Interstate highway, and it is numbered 311.

Well, that was fast.  It's already been fixed!

I-311? Did Google mistake that to be US 311? I don't even know if US 311 is even ready to be upgraded to Interstate status.

Sometimes it helps to click the link where it's given, so you can see that yes, it was supposed to be US 311, but yes, the section in question was already an Interstate (it's a multiplex of I-74/US 311).

Then again, sometimes it helps for me to read my own signature, but I put it there knowing I wouldn't.

On a lighter note, enjoy these US 1993 shields in the same area: http://goo.gl/maps/O1rYd

[Roadsguy]

http://goo.gl/maps/QWxjA

[rickmastfan67]

http://goo.gl/maps/QWxjA

And to boot, it really looks like Google took it directly from OSM (the alignment that is)!!

[NE2]

http://goo.gl/maps/QWxjA

And to boot, it really looks like Google took it directly from OSM (the alignment that is)!!

Evidence? Do they both have the alignment wrong in the same way?

[rickmastfan67]

http://goo.gl/maps/QWxjA

And to boot, it really looks like Google took it directly from OSM (the alignment that is)!!

Evidence? Do they both have the alignment wrong in the same way?

Well, my evidence is using the CHM browser that allows me to compare different imagery sources.  Since we don't have I-781 in our browser yet, use I-81's file.  Hit Exit #48 and then zoom into the new alignment of I-781.  It's pretty might identical on Google to OSM's.  Just switch between the "Mapnik" and "Map" layers.  This is especially fishy since Google doesn't even have Sat imagery yet for that area showing the highway under-construction (Bing does), and I don't think they could have had any StreetView cars up there already to get a trace.

[NE2]

I don't buy it. There's definitely some difference, especially west of NY 37, where Google better matches the bridges visible on the Bing and NAIP (MQ Open) aerials than OSM. It seems that whoever added it to Google simply used a different aerial photo.

[rickmastfan67]

I don't buy it. There's definitely some difference, especially west of NY 37, where Google better matches the bridges visible on the Bing and NAIP (MQ Open) aerials than OSM. It seems that whoever added it to Google simply used a different aerial photo.

Maybe you're right about somebody somehow using the NAIP imagery to trace it into Google.  Just seemed a tad phishy to me.

[WNYroadgeek]

Also, it's not designated as an interstate, and it's not marked as I-781.

[rickmastfan67]

Also, it's not designated as an interstate, and it's not marked as I-781.

I only said that the "alignment" was possibly taken from OSM.

And to boot, it really looks like Google took it directly from OSM (the alignment that is)!!

[vdeane]

Leave it to Google to do something like this wrong.  Their logic is probably along the lines of "there are no interchanges between I-81 and US 11 so it's not a freeway".  To top it off, NY 342 is marked as the more heavily traveled road, as evidenced when you zoom out (this seems to be a common problem, actually, and is still an issue with I-69).

[NE2]

To top it off, NY 342 is marked as the more heavily traveled road, as evidenced when you zoom out (this seems to be a common problem, actually, and is still an issue with I-69).

It's also an issue with Interstates vs. other freeways. Look ma, no Turnpike! http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.396233,-80.848389&spn=4.406221,8.453979&gl=us&t=m&z=8

PS: How did this get I-465 shields? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.514051,-79.784153&spn=0.003982,0.008256&gl=us&t=m&z=18

[Alps]

To top it off, NY 342 is marked as the more heavily traveled road, as evidenced when you zoom out (this seems to be a common problem, actually, and is still an issue with I-69).

It's also an issue with Interstates vs. other freeways. Look ma, no Turnpike! http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.396233,-80.848389&spn=4.406221,8.453979&gl=us&t=m&z=8

PS: How did this get I-465 shields? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.514051,-79.784153&spn=0.003982,0.008256&gl=us&t=m&z=18

I-465 was briefly extended along the entirety of I-74 because people are stupid and Google doesn't review user contributions very well. So when that was retracted, I guess this remained because no one caught the initial error that the service area roadways were labeled as Interstates. Why I wish OSM would implement route directions, so that I don't have to ever use Google Maps.

[Some_Person]

To top it off, NY 342 is marked as the more heavily traveled road, as evidenced when you zoom out (this seems to be a common problem, actually, and is still an issue with I-69).

It's also an issue with Interstates vs. other freeways. Look ma, no Turnpike! http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.396233,-80.848389&spn=4.406221,8.453979&gl=us&t=m&z=8

It's a weird problem too; click on that link and zoom in once towards Orlando. You'll see the state route freeways become visible, and some segments of freeway northwest of Orlando, that don't become fully visible until you zoom in once more. I wish Google maps had a filter we could use, like a checkmarked type box that we can use so we can only see certain roads and all that. In my opinion, it'd be pretty cool to zoom into somewhere like New York City and have a filter that only shows freeways, or only Interstates, stuff like that. It doesn't seem like it'd be a hard thing to implement.

[NE2]

Why I wish OSM would implement route directions, so that I don't have to ever use Google Maps.

http://map.project-osrm.org/ is pretty decent, though I still prefer the Goog for ease of use (since I can usually spot errors).

[Roadsguy]

To top it off, NY 342 is marked as the more heavily traveled road, as evidenced when you zoom out (this seems to be a common problem, actually, and is still an issue with I-69).

It's also an issue with Interstates vs. other freeways. Look ma, no Turnpike! http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.396233,-80.848389&spn=4.406221,8.453979&gl=us&t=m&z=8

PS: How did this get I-465 shields? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=35.514051,-79.784153&spn=0.003982,0.008256&gl=us&t=m&z=18

Why I wish OSM would implement route directions, so that I don't have to ever use Google Maps.

I would barely touch Google or Bing if OSM had satellite view. I'd only touch the other two for street view or birds-eye, but all we need is a pipe to get them both added to OSM.

[Alps]

Why I wish OSM would implement route directions, so that I don't have to ever use Google Maps.

http://map.project-osrm.org/ is pretty decent, though I still prefer the Goog for ease of use (since I can usually spot errors).

I tested that out. It's a good starting concept but needs some UI work (for example, to let you know it's processing - which it does often but not always). Some of the routes are wonky and it doesn't always take your rerouting very kindly. If OSRM is going to be what happens with OSM, I'll wait until it gets out of functional beta.

[vdeane]

The view from the Highway Browser from CHM is nice, allowing the user to use ANY mapping service (that isn't mobile only), including street view.  Now all they need is a way to access that view outside of the Highway Browser and driving directions.

[Some_Person]

Should this portion of US 9 bythe Raritan river in New Jersey be labelled as freeway? http://goo.gl/maps/hpvji It's marked as a motorway on OSM and it does have a few interchanges in this segment, so I don't see why it isn't.

[empirestate]

Should this portion of US 9 bythe Raritan river in New Jersey be labelled as freeway? http://goo.gl/maps/hpvji It's marked as a motorway on OSM and it does have a few interchanges in this segment, so I don't see why it isn't.

To the letter, that's probably fair. However, from a cartographic standpoint, there's an argument to be made for visually distinguishing US 9, not a freeway overall, from the adjacent GSP, which is a freeway for most of its length. One of the hallmarks of superior mapmaking is exactly this kind of digesting and interpreting facts so that they are most meaningful to the user. Digital mapping services are notorious for anomalies produced by overly-strict application of parameters (labeling "BR" as "Branch" when it's supposed to mean "Business Route", for example). In this case of course, it's not wrong to say that US 9 is briefly a freeway, but it's perhaps not the most effective way to convey the nature of the road for navigation purposes.

If I were mapping the area, I'd indicate that there were interchanges along US 9, but I'd depict the road itself with a symbol distinct from the one I used for freeways.

[NE2]

However, from a cartographic standpoint, there's an argument to be made for visually distinguishing US 9, not a freeway overall, from the adjacent GSP, which is a freeway for most of its length.

When you try to do this sort of on-the-fly visual distinction, it doesn't always work. What would you do if US 9 were an Interstate (such as an x95 from the Turnpike to South Amboy)? See also: I-90 and I-790/NY 49.

By the way, in both of these cases, coloring toll roads differently would work (if the GSP didn't have one-way tolling): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.51668&lon=-74.29869&zoom=16&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.12111&lon=-75.22352&zoom=15&layers=Q

[empirestate]

However, from a cartographic standpoint, there's an argument to be made for visually distinguishing US 9, not a freeway overall, from the adjacent GSP, which is a freeway for most of its length.

When you try to do this sort of on-the-fly visual distinction, it doesn't always work. What would you do if US 9 were an Interstate (such as an x95 from the Turnpike to South Amboy)? See also: I-90 and I-790/NY 49.

I'd use the same symbology and put an Interstate shield on it, unless I was making a map that specifically showed highway designation classes. For a similar example, would you show a US route as a heavier highway symbol when it meanders through congested city streets, or would you use a symbol like other similar streets on the area? An official highway map would probably set off the designated US route by symbology, but one intended for general navigation purpose might not, relying instead only on the shield symbol to denote the designation.

For the I-790 example, it depends somewhat on scale and the level of detail being shown. Some maps try to show the dual carriageway situation, but others set off I-790 as a separate, parallel roadway. Certainly I-790 is a weird enough highway that it present problems for cartographic display. I-180 in Wyoming is another...I'm sure nobody here would expect to see it labeled as a freeway, but we would expect to see it shown as an Interstate.

By the way, in both of these cases, coloring toll roads differently would work (if the GSP didn't have o
ne-way tolling): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.51668&lon=-74.29869&zoom=16&layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.12111&lon=-75.22352&zoom=15&layers=Q

Yes, both the GSP and the Thruway are different enough from US 9 and I-790 that they should be shown differently regardless, but I'd say that's true even if they were not toll roads.

Also, there is the ongoing struggle of whether and how to show one-way tolling, or barrier-based systems with lots of free segments. Many maps just show a road as toll overall, even though there are many routes along them that won't require any payment. That leaves something to be desired in terms of completeness, but graphically showing every case where there is or isn't a payment required can be visually confusing and may be impossible in certain cases. That's one place where digital routing can help, since it can show whether or not a toll will be paid on any given routing.

[US71]

FWIW, I've been looking at Google Maps along the I-49 Corridor in Missouri: it looks as if all the upgraded interchanges have been incorporated into the map, though not all labelled.

UPDATE: there are some 49 shields along 71, including along Bruce Watkins Parkway. Still, I've found half a dozen glitches without even trying including a road that shows on satellite view south of Neosho, but not on the maps.

[StogieGuy7]

I'm too lazy to pick through all 26 pages of this thread, but am still compelled to ask whether anyone has noticed Maine's new Interstate 6?   

Plowing through the backcountry of Maine is a sleek new interstate highway who's designation was plucked from a project somewhere in Florida that could-have-been.....  https://maps.google.com/?ll=45.612116,-69.690399&spn=0.389535,0.617294&t=h&z=11

[Kacie Jane]

I'm too lazy to pick through all 26 pages of this thread, but am still compelled to ask whether anyone has noticed Maine's new Interstate 6?

If you're too lazy to pick through all 26 pages, can you at least go back one page next time?

Don't know if anyone has noticed, but Maine apparently has started signing the new rooftop highway as Interstate 6.  Still a 2 lane road though