https://www.tedc.org/sites/default/files/map_thumbs/tyler_state_0.jpg (https://www.tedc.org/sites/default/files/map_thumbs/tyler_state_0.jpg)
Great job, Tyler Economic Development Council. Here are the errors I spotted. Add your own if I missed any.
I-2: Doesn't exist.
I-10: Avoids New Orleans via I-12, ends in Mobile.
I-12: Doesn't exist.
I-14: Doesn't exist.
I-16: Doesn't exist.
I-20: Ends at I-85.
I-22: Doesn't exist.
I-24: Doesn't exist.
I-25: Avoids I-10 until El Paso.
I-26: Doesn't exist.
I-27: Doesn't exist.
I-30: Ends at I-35 instead of I-20.
I-35: Never splits into E/W branches.
I-37: Doesn't exist.
I-40: Ends at I-81.
I-44: Doesn't exist.
I-49: Doesn't exist north of Shreveport into MO, not proposed south of Lafayette.
I-55: Ends in Memphis and New Orleans (related to I-10 error).
I-57: Doesn't exist (though it would barely be shown), yet Future I-57 is completely shown north of Little Rock.
I-65: Ends at I-40.
I-69: Not shown as proposed south of Houston; none of the three Texas branches exist. Shown as proposed heading north from Texarkana roughly along I-49 instead of northeast.
I-75: Ends at I-59.
I-85: Ends at I-20.
Little Rock is too far east.
Obviously the map was illustrated (likely in a rush) by someone who didn't care very much about map accuracy. I can forgive some maps of the US being a bit abstracted or stylized when there is a purpose to it, such as the map being really small thus requiring details to be simplified and even some of the smaller details being eliminated.
But if Tyler's Economic Development Council was going for a more stylized map (with details simplified and not accurate to scale) they could have gone about in a variety of different ways. For instance, there's no need for the map to be expanded out to encompass most of the Southern and Southwestern States. They didn't need to stick icons on every Interstate route, just the ones coming within a couple hundred or so miles of Tyler. Overall the map does little to suggest Tyler is at a major cross-roads point.
Since when did Little Rock and Pine Bluff switch names?
Edit: It looks like New Orleans is more south... and above sea level.
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2018, 07:48:19 PM
https://www.tedc.org/sites/default/files/map_thumbs/tyler_state_0.jpg (https://www.tedc.org/sites/default/files/map_thumbs/tyler_state_0.jpg)
...
I-20: Ends at I-85.
...
I-85: Ends at I-20.
I-85 is also routed to Birmingham, it appears. Also, the turn of I-65 SW towards Mobile in Montgomery is much sharper than in real life, with it going a bit further NW than it does in real life.
I want to know when Arkansas invaded Adair County, Oklahoma.
Let's face it. There's so much wrong with that graphic that Tyler, TX should demand their money back. I also recommend :ded: to the person who accepted this atrocity.
It just looks like it was supposed to be a very general map for PR purposes to let people know where Tyler is. Its inaccuracy (including how far out it is zoomed, which is weird), therefore, is tolerable.
Interestingly -- and this was brought up in the I-69/TX thread -- the projected alignment of I-69 indeed heads toward MO in this depiction (I hesitate to call it cartography). This appears to be a particular TX habit -- projecting corridors north rather than where they actually are intended to go -- possibly mimicking actual commercial traffic patterns. What the Tyler PR map shows is simply that it's located in TX somewhere near DFW -- likely trying to attract warehousing/distribution business that wishes to avoid the higher operating costs intrinsic to larger metro areas. Accuracy of the general regional environment likely wasn't high on their priority list, as long as their NE TX general location was made reasonably clear.