AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: mrivera1 on February 02, 2009, 12:35:00 AM

Title: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: mrivera1 on February 02, 2009, 12:35:00 AM
I routinely use Google Maps to get directions to places just about anywhere, and I've noticed some weird screw-ups on the route numbers for roads.  Google likes to put a route number on many routes that are no longer part of the highway system.  Also, they like to give state route #'s to business routes.  Examples I have for both are in Barstow, CA.  On Old Hwy 58, they have route 58 cosigned with route 466, but they have the route incorrectly signed as US Hwy. 58 and CA-466.   Another one is the Business Loop 15 on Main St., but it is signed on Google as having CA-15 signage.  This intrigues me simply because it probably confuses many average drivers.  Any other incorrect route numbers that you all have noticed with online mapping?  Doesn't matter if you use Google Maps or Mapquest or whatever.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: V'Ger on February 02, 2009, 12:36:16 AM
The example on live maps of the bridge over the C&D Canal in Maryland...
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: rawr apples on February 02, 2009, 12:36:55 AM
lol...look at Northern Irelands motorway number system..hilarious
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 02, 2009, 12:39:08 AM
Google Maps uses interstate shields on freeways in China.

Also, apparently Virginia has a VA 58 between two discontinuous pieces of US 58.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: V'Ger on February 02, 2009, 12:40:36 AM
Don't they do that in Canada as well?
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 02, 2009, 12:42:56 AM
They used to in Quebec, but now autoroutes for some reason a generic route shield similar to Alberta's provincial route shield.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: un1 on February 02, 2009, 12:44:35 AM
In Thunder Bay, they still have highways from the mid 1990s.
(Highway 11, 17 A and B, and the re-routed 11/17 - 130 corridor)

-un1
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: PAHighways on February 02, 2009, 01:03:12 AM
Google Maps has resurrected many of the decommissioned PA routes that were axed after WWII like PA 908 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Coxcomb+Hill+Road+%2B+New+Kensington,+PA&sll=40.541982,-79.7616&sspn=0.032156,0.077248&ie=UTF8&ll=40.534938,-79.787178&spn=0.064319,0.154495&z=13&iwloc=addr) and PA 766 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Oakford+Park+Road+%2B+Jeannette,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.313287,79.101563&ie=UTF8&ll=40.341899,-79.588566&spn=0.032252,0.077248&z=14&iwloc=addr).
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Alex on February 02, 2009, 01:36:46 AM
They also show U.S. 90 as State 90 quite often, but I think those are more quirks whereas the decommissioned routes, like U.S. 81 on Interstate 35, are just the results of bad researchers working at NAVTEQ and TA.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: V'Ger on February 02, 2009, 03:07:32 AM
US 40 has shown up along I-80 in CA.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: DrZoidberg on February 02, 2009, 12:04:19 PM
Here's one that bugs me about Google maps.  I don't see any OR-208 signs in Beaverton.

(http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww172/Ndubs26/Highway4.jpg)
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: ComputerGuy on February 02, 2009, 12:56:20 PM
Yahoo Maps shows decomissioned (non-existent) routes in Washington. For Wikipedia editors, this can be quite useful.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: SSOWorld on February 02, 2009, 02:39:26 PM
Yahoo Maps shows decomissioned (non-existent) routes in Washington. For Wikipedia editors, this can be quite useful.
Not really - How can you be sure they are reliable - all of them?
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Revive 755 on February 02, 2009, 03:11:06 PM
* NE 2 extending beyond the western terminus of its eastern half over US 77 and US 6:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.800686,-96.744318&spn=0.029887,0.087891&z=14 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.800686,-96.744318&spn=0.029887,0.087891&z=14)

* Link 93E marked as NE 93, compare http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.821277,-97.700465&spn=0,359.824219&z=13&layer=c&cbll=40.821277,-97.700465&panoid=wrGzpFssyRdRRXe0wL6cNg&cbp=12,107.78610789246613,,0,10.25354772566927 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.821277,-97.700465&spn=0,359.824219&z=13&layer=c&cbll=40.821277,-97.700465&panoid=wrGzpFssyRdRRXe0wL6cNg&cbp=12,107.78610789246613,,0,10.25354772566927) with http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.849398,-97.688713&spn=0.119462,0.351562&z=12 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.849398,-97.688713&spn=0.119462,0.351562&z=12)

* US 34 demoted to NE 34 west of "NE 93"

* Shows a lot of routes Iowa decommissioned in 2003.

* Lots of errors with Missouri's lettered routes.  Take this section along Rte M in Jefferson County:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.358821,-90.427694&spn=0.030959,0.087891&z=14 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.358821,-90.427694&spn=0.030959,0.087891&z=14)
First, "Hwy MM" (the new 60 mph expressway) is actually Rte M.  Second, "Hwy M" is now Old Highway M.  Third, I have no idea where "State Road O" came from.  In other places they are incorrectly called county highways.

* Still shows MO 21A  around Crystal City, and even on two different alignments:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.216267,-90.419798&spn=0.03102,0.087891&z=14 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.216267,-90.419798&spn=0.03102,0.087891&z=14)

* Not completely incorrect, but the MO 364 freeway is actually the Buzz Westfall Highway in St. Louis County, but I think most people refer to it as the Page Avenue Extension

* Shows former alignments of state highways in St. Louis city that have not been revived yet, like MO 340, MO 267, and MO 231.  What's strange though is the latter two also appear on some of MoDOT's traffic county maps.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Bryant5493 on February 02, 2009, 04:08:26 PM
Google Maps has South Fulton Parkway signed as US 29, instead of the US 29 Alternate. Also, Google Maps has SR 70 following Campbellton-Redwine Road to Cascade-Palmetto Highway. SR 70 currently follows Cascade-Palmetto Highway (SR 154) and South Fulton Parkway West to Campbellton-Redwine Road South to Newnan, Georgia.

http://maps.google.com/ (http://maps.google.com/)

Type in "South Fulton Parkway, Fairburn, Georgia 30213" to see what I'm talking about.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 02, 2009, 04:36:01 PM
I don't think Google has an ALT shield at all... so US-29 is likely the best they can do with their current set of graphics.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Bryant5493 on February 02, 2009, 05:47:49 PM
I don't think Google has an ALT shield at all... so US-29 is likely the best they can do with their current set of graphics.

Okay, didn't know that. It's misleading, though.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Duke87 on February 02, 2009, 05:56:04 PM
Not a route numbering in consistency, but a graphical one:

In Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and India, all federal highways are colored freeway orange, whether they're limited access or not.

This problem used to also exist in Canada with the TCH, but they fixed it there.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: John on February 02, 2009, 07:39:10 PM
Mapquest is even worse. They have old state highways (especially in NV for some reason) all over the place, decommissioned US routes are a frequent visitor, and tons of neighborhoods and names of stuff (ex tunnel names) are marked as towns.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: mightyace on February 02, 2009, 07:53:55 PM
Mapquest is even worse. They have old state highways (especially in NV for some reason) all over the place,

Didn't Nevada renumber its state highways a number of years ago?  I remember seeing it in old Rand-McNally atlases, but I think that was before Mapquest even existed.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: John on February 02, 2009, 09:13:03 PM
Yeah, back in the 1970s (I'm tempted to say '74). Mapquest doesn't have many of those, thankfully, but they do have a lot of highways decommissioned in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: algorerhythms on February 02, 2009, 09:26:34 PM
Google Maps doesn't have any sort of ALT, Business, etc. banners, so in western MD it alternates between US-40 following I-68 and following US-40 ALT. It also has some roads that just don't exist anymore, and it has Maryland Route 9, which has never existed...

Not a route numbering in consistency, but a graphical one:

In Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and India, all federal highways are colored freeway orange, whether they're limited access or not.

This problem used to also exist in Canada with the TCH, but they fixed it there.

For a while Google Maps did the same thing in the United States. US-19 in West Virginia, for example, was marked as a freeway, even though it isn't.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Darkchylde on February 02, 2009, 09:55:50 PM
Close to home, Spur LA 437, as well as the part of Columbia Street in Covington that carries mainline LA 437, are marked as LA 25. LA 25 hasn't been on Columbia Street for decades. Also, for a long time Fish Hatchery Road (the locally-maintained part) was shown on Google Maps as LA 1072, a designation actually existing in Washington Parish.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on February 02, 2009, 11:05:10 PM
They have a handful of U.S. Routes in LA that switch back in forth from U.S. to State banners.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: ComputerGuy on March 22, 2009, 01:34:50 PM
Google Map screwups:

Spokane, WA

Apparently there's a US 2 and SR 2, along with a US 395 and SR 395.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: AZDude on March 22, 2009, 08:59:26 PM
There are newer maps (not sure about Google) that are still cosigning U.S. 89 and AZ 93 with U.S. 60 through Phoenix!   :banghead:
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: deathtopumpkins on March 23, 2009, 07:06:43 PM
One thing that bugs me is that BUS or ALT US Routes get a SR shield on Google Earth...
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: roadfro on March 24, 2009, 05:19:41 AM
My biggest gripe with online maps is the wrong designations.  As has been said, Google Maps doesn't show banners.  I've seen some areas where ALT banners are shown with a letter (ie US 50 Alternate as US 50A).  There's also the fact that Google Maps shows state routes, county routes and possibly others all with just an oval--they could at least use a rectangle for county routes.  Sure the directions state it clearly, but its nice to have the visual cues match up as well.

Quote
Didn't Nevada renumber its state highways a number of years ago?  I remember seeing it in old Rand-McNally atlases, but I think that was before Mapquest even existed.
Quote
Yeah, back in the 1970s (I'm tempted to say '74). Mapquest doesn't have many of those, thankfully, but they do have a lot of highways decommissioned in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

Nevada's renumbering was approved internally on July 1, 1976.  The new and old numbers first appeared on NDOT's official maps with the 1978-79 version and again on the 1980-81 version.  A 1982 NDOT map had only new numbers (but mostly only showed routes numbered 499 and below)

A decent amount of Nevada's pre-1976 numbers appear on online maps (especially Google)
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Stephane Dumas on March 24, 2009, 08:02:11 AM
Quote
They also show "hidden" routes.  US 31 through Tennessee appears on Google maps plus some paper maps as well, duplexed with TN 6.  I have yet to see a TN 6 sign.  (Someone did post something like that for the Ellingtion Parkway section of US 31E in north Nashville, they put the "hidden" route on the median signs.)

I saw it this they marked the hidden routes of Georgia Interstates as well as FL-91 (Florida turnpike)
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: rmsandw on March 25, 2009, 12:50:10 AM
Taking a look at goggle in two areas of Indiana, you see IN St Rt 53 running through De Motte, IN.  It stays with U.S. 231 to just after Ring Grove.  From Lafayette IN 43 joins U.S. 231, until Southport, where another section of IN 43 starts.  This could just be a unlabled, unmaped (not showing on state maps), route for IN 43.  One more!...At Bremen, evendently IN St Rt 6 (which does not exisit) runs along the entire length of IN St Rt 106.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: Michael on March 26, 2009, 09:30:35 AM
The most common problem I see is the State/U.S. Route mix-ups.
Title: Re: Route # Inconsistencies on Online Mapping services (i.e. Google Maps)
Post by: mightyace on March 26, 2009, 12:32:51 PM
Quote
The most common problem I see is the State/U.S. Route mix-ups.

Yes, I was looking at eastern Tennessee yesterday and US 321 switched from US 321 to TN 321 when it does no such thing!

Also, that part of Tennessee has a number of suffixed routes (US 11E/W, US 19E/W, US 25E/W) and they would sometimes say, for example, US 11E sometimes and just US 11 others.  I'm sure that would confuse people to see two parallel US 11's!