Incorrect highways marked on Google Maps

[hotdogPi]

Colombia has US routes.
Ecuador has Interstates.

Proof: http://goo.gl/maps/QRWy6

[Billy F 1988]

Americanizing foreign highways, no?

[vtk]

I've seen some maps using the same marker for Quebec Autoroutes as US Interstates...

[agentsteel53]

yep, going the lazy route and substituting in a symbol which is "close enough".

[hotdogPi]

Bolivia and Chile have US routes too.

[Thing 342]

Apparently Alaska Route 9 got an extension: https://maps.google.com/?ll=64.071899,-141.091919&spn=0.2615,1.056747&t=m&z=11

[NE2]

Nova Scotia has U.S. Routes.

[hotdogPi]

Apparently Alaska Route 9 got an extension: https://maps.google.com/?ll=64.071899,-141.091919&spn=0.2615,1.056747&t=m&z=11

And it leads directly into Dawson, at a river. It must be Dawson's Creek (the show).


Also, check here.
Route 253 in Quebec extends into New Hampshire, and there seems to be erroneous County Route 1 and County Route 9.

Route 253 has a completely different form in Canada within 150 feet of the border.

[hotdogPi]

Nova Scotia has U.S. Routes.

Nova Scotia seems to have words in routes that make it not fit, but I don't see US routes there.

[NE2]

Nova Scotia has U.S. Routes.

Nova Scotia seems to have words in routes that make it not fit, but I don't see US routes there.

holy crap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotia_Trunk_2

[hotdogPi]

This place in Nova Scotia has a 4-way concurrency between these four US routes:

4
Hwy 4
Trunk 4
Nova Scotia Trunk 4

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Colombia has US routes.
Ecuador has Interstates.

Proof: http://goo.gl/maps/QRWy6

Ecuador actually has "Interstates", as far as I can tell you . They use the same shield for their routes.

[agentsteel53]

yep, '70 spec neutered, with ECUADOR in the crown.  both narrow and wide versions exist. 

I wonder if they ever used '57 or '61 spec neutered.

[national highway 1]

Ecuador has Interstates.

New South Wales Freeway Routes

[Roadgeek2500]

Google got the drawings of this waterway in Cape May, NJ pretty far off

http://goo.gl/maps/qaPCv

[TEG24601]

This place in Nova Scotia has a 4-way concurrency between these four US routes:

4
Hwy 4
Trunk 4
Nova Scotia Trunk 4

The Nova Scotia Trunk Route System uses a symbol nearly identical to the US Routes, therefor the Symbol is correct, if the duplication is not.

[Molandfreak]

The Nova Scotia Trunk Route System uses a symbol nearly identical to the US Routes, therefor the Symbol is correct, if the duplication is not.

Uhh. The same information is literally found in the post before that.

holy crap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotia_Trunk_2

[Molandfreak]

They're jumping the gun on interstates again: http://goo.gl/maps/f3Wer

[hotdogPi]

They're jumping the gun on interstates again: http://goo.gl/maps/f3Wer

They have already jumped the gun on future I-86, but now they're doing I-99!

[Molandfreak]

They're jumping the gun on interstates again: http://goo.gl/maps/f3Wer

They have already jumped the gun on future I-86, but now they're doing I-99!

I believe 86 is correct in that situation; 99 was the real point.

[english si]

Future Interstates are signed with blue and red shields. The question is merely a "how well?". Given that many tile mapping services struggle with bannered routes, especially Google, I can understand signing the future interstates if they are signed with more than the very occasional sign.

[hotdogPi]

MA 7 (400 feet long): http://goo.gl/maps/ETkxD

Random freeway: http://goo.gl/maps/NA5sc

36 should be 26: http://goo.gl/maps/3sRKH

Not actually 85: http://goo.gl/maps/JVZjU

[Molandfreak]

Future Interstates are signed with blue and red shields. The question is merely a "how well?". Given that many tile mapping services struggle with bannered routes, especially Google, I can understand signing the future interstates if they are signed with more than the very occasional sign.

If that's true, why don't they just jump the gun on surface street sections of future 99, 69, 11, 72, 22?, and 49, as well as "future" 66, 73, and 74?

[briantroutman]

They're jumping the gun on interstates again: http://goo.gl/maps/f3Wer

They have already jumped the gun on future I-86, but now they're doing I-99!

I was going to post this but I've been beaten to it. From what I have seen, Google posts I-99 for the Williamsport to Corning section only–but not the Williamsport to I-80 stretch or the overlap with I-80 near Bellefonte and Lamar.

But the section they do have signed (Williamsport to Corning) is the only of the three "Future 99" sections that is signed. Makes me wonder how they're acquiring this data.

The question is merely a "how well?"...

As far as I've seen, none of the Future 99 shields is freestanding; all are ground-mounted on rectangular "FUTURE 99 CORRIDOR" assemblies. They're not signed very consistently–at best a single assembly after more significant interchanges with nothing ever on overhead guides, trailblazers, or entrance ramp signs.

[TEG24601]

Remember, most of the Data comes from Local Governments, GIS, and users.  So perhaps someone is trying to be 'smart' by marking it early.