2016 Rand McNally Road Atlas

[US 41]

Well I figured I'd start this topic. The 2016 Rand McNally will be available to order online on April 15th. I always look forward to it coming out. The Rand McNally has its errors and there are several things we would all like to see changed in the atlas. However IMO the Rand McNally still produces the most accurate atlases.

Thing I want to see in the new atlas:

1) Hopefully they go back to the 2014 format for the Mexico map so its easier to read. It will be interesting to see if the Autopista Durango - Mazatlan is shown in green this year or if its even shown at all, as well as the northern bypass around Torreon.

2) I-540 changed to I-49 in Arkansas (I'm sure this will be shown)

3) Arkansas SR 530 south of Pine Bluff shown as a primary (red) road, not as a gray secondary road.

4) Eisenhower Tunnel not shown as an 11 mile long tunnel.

5) I'm pretty sure KS 4 will never be extended north in Topeka so get rid of the blue dashed line.

Things I would like to see that won't be in the new atlas.

1) Estado maps of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and both Baja Californias. (similar to showing the Canadian provinces that are closest to the US), with inset maps of Monterrey, Saltillo, and Chihuahua.

Note: I haven't kept up very well with new roads that have been opened up.

[Stephane Dumas]

A larger and bigger Toronto inset, with the coming of the West Durham (Hwy-412) and East Durham (Hwy=418) connectors showed under construction with Hwy-407 extension.

Btw, did they show a blue dashed line at Windsor, Ontario between the current end of Hwy-401 and Detroit River in the 2015 edition?

[nexus73]

US 97 freeway/expressway segments in Oregon would be nice to see.  We have 4-lane expressway on SR 34 between Corvallis to just west of Lebanon which never shows up on a R-M map.  There is also a 4-mile stretch of 4-lane expressway on US 101 south of Brookings that is MIA.  SR 62 is a 4-lane expressway to Eagle Point from I-5 with more traffic carried than I-5 has but you would never know it looking at a R-M map.

Rick

[kphoger]

I would bet money that it still shows the entire state of Chihuahua in the wrong time zone. Wrong since at least the 2000 edition.

[triplemultiplex]

That map of Mexico is virtually useless in the scope of the entire atlas.  Either treat it like Canada, or scrap it.

[kphoger]

Not just virtually. Some lines are simply drawn inaccurately and could literally lead a driver astray.

[SSOWorld]

In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete. 

[US 41]

Not just virtually. Some lines are simply drawn inaccurately and could literally lead a driver astray.

Yeah, forever the 85 libre from Nvo. Laredo to Monterrey was shown as a 4 lane highway. MX 57 between MX 80 and Saltillo is shown as a 2 lane highway. Parts of MX 40 between Torreon and Saltillo are shown as a 2 lane highway. Hopefully MX 54 between Saltillo and Zacatecas is shown as a 4 lane highway in the new atlas but I wouldn't count on it.

[Roadrunner75]

The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition.  Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".

[kphoger]

Not just virtually. Some lines are simply drawn inaccurately and could literally lead a driver astray.

Yeah, forever the 85 libre from Nvo. Laredo to Monterrey was shown as a 4 lane highway. MX 57 between MX 80 and Saltillo is shown as a 2 lane highway. Parts of MX 40 between Torreon and Saltillo are shown as a 2 lane highway. Hopefully MX 54 between Saltillo and Zacatecas is shown as a 4 lane highway in the new atlas but I wouldn't count on it.

In a few of your examples alone, roads do not intersect where RMcN says they do, and/or they do intersect where RMcN doesn't say. This doesn't really happen on the US maps, but I would certainly not recommend navigating in Mexico by using the Rand.

[rschen7754]

Apparently it won't have I-41.

[Brandon]

I'd like to see RMcN treat Mexico and Canada the same as the US and have proper city insets for Canadian cities.  I'd also like to see a proper Puerto Rico map where it should be, between Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.  Adding Guam, the Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa couldn't hurt either as this is a US/Canada/Mexico atlas.

[leroys73]

In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.

But they are inaccurate also.  Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip. 

[leroys73]

In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.

But the internet mapping are inaccurate at times also.  Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip. 

[Brandon]

In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.

But the internet mapping are inaccurate at times also.  Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip. 

Much agreed.  I much prefer the larger picture while driving, and usually prefer the map put out by the state DOT above all others.  Barring that, RMcN is second-best.

[6a]

The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition.  Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".

Glad to see I'm not the only one that does that. I picked up a lot of habits from my dad, one that sticks with me to this day is having an atlas in the shitter.

[shadyjay]

Oh just great.  This means my annual "I hate Walmart" battle... traveling to Walmarts in 5 states trying to find the stupid thing.  Then when I get it, sit it side by side with the previous year's and compare. 

I still have to (one of these years) send RMcN a message as to various inaccuracies, predominatly rest areas.  Why don't they show service plazas on non-toll roads as service plazas?  That just really "grinds my gears".  The service plaza on the toll-free Major Deagan in NYC are shown that way.  And why did they remove so many of the Rest Area-No Facilities from being shown in Southeastern Massachusetts? 

But more importantly, there's a missing bridge on the VT map (VT/NH 11 between Springfield VT and Charlestown NH at I-91 Exit 7). 

[US 41]

The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition.  Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".

So Target gets the new atlas as soon as it comes out? I might have to go to Indy this next weekend and see if they have it. I already know Walmart won't have it until like mid May.

[SSOWorld]

The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition.  Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".

So Target gets the new atlas as soon as it comes out? I might have to go to Indy this next weekend and see if they have it. I already know Walmart won't have it until like mid May.

But not Wal-Mart, cause they brand it.

In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.

But the internet mapping are inaccurate at times also.  Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip. 

Much agreed.  I much prefer the larger picture while driving, and usually prefer the map put out by the state DOT above all others.  Barring that, RMcN is second-best.

Zoom out then

[kphoger]

Re: Zoom out.

Somewhat true. And one can also print on larger paper, though most people only ever think about 8.5x11.

However, each zoom level lose detail. The level of detail available in RMcN's state map of Nebraska, for example, is greater than that affotded by a zoomed-out view of Nebraska in Google Maps.

I frequently snip screenshots of Google Maps and paste them together in Paint for precisely this reason. It's a bit tedious, but it works.

[bandit957]

At least print maps can be saved. Electronic maps are not saved.

[Bickendan]

US 97 freeway/expressway segments in Oregon would be nice to see.

Indeed.   

We have 4-lane expressway on SR 34 between Corvallis to just west of Lebanon which never shows up on a R-M map.

Super-4. Just like OR 224, not sure I'd really mark differently as it already is.

There is also a 4-mile stretch of 4-lane expressway on US 101 south of Brookings that is MIA.  SR 62 is a 4-lane expressway to Eagle Point from I-5 with more traffic carried than I-5 has but you would never know it looking at a R-M map.
Rick

Not sure if these are divided or not; it's been years since I was on OR 62 in Medford.
With that said, the freeway portions of OR 18 and OR 22 should be on there if they aren't.

[OCGuy81]

Apparently it won't have I-41.

I was hoping that would be in there, but seeing as how the approval was just finalized, it probably missed the cutoff for the Atlas.

I'm curious if they'll now show I-69 all the way through Houston on the inset.

[Henry]

It would be nice to see individual maps of the Northwest and Yukon Territories included in the Canadian section, along with full shots of all ten provinces, but I guess we'll never get to see either.

And seconded on the Mexican states idea, although it would be expensive to make maps of its 31 states (if I'm right), and thus less feasible compared to a full shot of the country as a whole.

[oscar]

It would be nice to see individual maps of the Northwest and Yukon Territories included in the Canadian section, along with full shots of all ten provinces, but I guess we'll never get to see either.

You can try a Canada-focused road atlas for that. Heck, the one I have devotes two pages to Nunavut, even though it has no highways, and there are no city insets to show the territory's few local roads.