AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: ACSCmapcollector on March 13, 2018, 03:20:54 PM

Title: Quality of cartography for Thomas Brothers Street Atlas has changed in 2016.
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on March 13, 2018, 03:20:54 PM
I have noticed one thing in the quality of the cartography for Thomas Brothers Street Atlas has changed since 2016.  I was at a Barnes and Nobles looking at the San Diego County as well as the Los Angeles and Orange County editions that came out in 2016 have only one red line for freeways inside of two very thin black lines, where they used to been 2 lines in red (double).  Rand McNally, I think would be the obvious cause of this, because it is not the same quality as when that edition came out in 1990!
Title: Re: Quality of cartography for Thomas Brothers Street Atlas has changed in 2016.
Post by: skluth on March 14, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
It sounds like the issue is symbology, not quality.
Title: Re: Quality of cartography for Thomas Brothers Street Atlas has changed in 2016.
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on March 14, 2018, 08:25:20 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 14, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
It sounds like the issue is symbology, not quality.

Well the proof is there, there is a change in their own cartography with one red line for a freeway from two lines (double), the proof is with my own eyes and source.
Title: Re: Quality of cartography for Thomas Brothers Street Atlas has changed in 2016.
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on March 15, 2018, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on March 14, 2018, 08:25:20 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 14, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
It sounds like the issue is symbology, not quality.

Well the proof is there, there is a change in their own cartography with one red line for a freeway from two lines (double), the proof is with my own eyes and source.

I think it is a formatting change, rather than a symbology change that took place.
Title: Re: Quality of cartography for Thomas Brothers Street Atlas has changed in 2016.
Post by: NE2 on March 15, 2018, 04:16:59 PM
.
.
.