2015 RandMcNally Road Atlas

[TCN7JM]

I wonder when this practice was discontinued? I really miss seeing multiple states on the same map.

I never really had a gripe with it, mainly because whenever I want to check something in SD, ND, or MN, I just use the DeLorme atlases I have for those states. However, opening up my 2014 Rand McNally and looking at the Dakotas, I can see that they'd probably do better on two pages.

[NE2]

My 1965 does (AR-LA-MS, DE-MD-VA-WV, among others). So nerr.

[US 41]

I'd like to see the Terre Haute inset map extended slightly to the west to include the Darwin Road interchange. Then I'd like to see it also extended to the south all the way to the US 41 / SR 641 interchangee.

[Henry]

I wonder when this practice was discontinued? I really miss seeing multiple states on the same map.

I never really had a gripe with it, mainly because whenever I want to check something in SD, ND, or MN, I just use the DeLorme atlases I have for those states. However, opening up my 2014 Rand McNally and looking at the Dakotas, I can see that they'd probably do better on two pages.

Looking at some old atlases from the 70s and early 80s, I've seen maps that have multiple states on them. So it's safe to say that it continued well after '65.

[US 41]

I'm full of ideas for that atlas. It would probably cost you another five bucks when I got done with it.  But it would suck a lot less.

I wouldn't mind paying an extra 5 bucks for it with lots of additions. I only buy it once a year anyways.

[shadyjay]

Looking at some old atlases from the 70s and early 80s, I've seen maps that have multiple states on them. So it's safe to say that it continued well after '65.

My 1990 RandMcN shows CT/RI and NH/VT within the same map.  VT/NH on one page, CT/RI on two pages.  By 1995, all states were separated.  My understanding was that so more city inserts could be added and so that all states were alphabetical. 

Personally, I think CT and ME should be on two pages.  There's a lot of information crammed into a single page map and it can get pretty congested, especially with the multiple city inserts for CT.  At least the 2014 version finally restored route markers to roads in eastern CT.  Now if only they'd recognize that service areas really do exist on non-tolled roads in the Northeast.   I keep forgetting to drop them an e-mail to see what they say about that.

[hbelkins]

I have an older (from the late 90's or early 00's) that has Connecticut on two pages.

[exit322]

I think they discontinued the multiple states on one map practice when they went to the currentish layout (with blue interstate shields and such), I believe the 1993 atlas being the first.

[triplemultiplex]

The biggest thing the RandMac needs is for some states that are currently crammed into one page to be given a two-page layout.  South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana and New Mexico really need some breathing room.  Not to mention this would open up more space for inset maps.

What about New Hampshire?

Nah, that state is too small geographically and not populous enough (like MA & NJ) for two pages.  Unless I pair it with VT.

The only states that should be restricted to a single page are the small ones in the Northeast.  (DE, NH, VT, RI, CT)

I would be open to multi-state layouts.  Put MA, CT & RI on a single two-page layout; VT & NH; lump DE in with MD.  Might need some extra pages for city insets, but it might be more useful.

[DTComposer]

Although I don't mind the each-state-gets-its-own-page(s) setup, it creates problems of scale: the smaller (Eastern) states are shown at scales that can rival some of the city insets, while the larger (Western) states are at much smaller scales, meaning that some of the dense urban areas of, say, Texas or California are shown with much less detail than the mostly rural areas of, say, Vermont or New Hampshire.

From that standpoint I like the Michelin concept - pages are tiled across the whole country without regard to state (although even that atlas uses a larger scale for the Western states than the Eastern states).

And in both atlases, I wish the all the city insets were at more consistent scales.

[vdeane]

Given the different density out west, I understand the larger scale.  On the Thruway, a four hour drive from Albany to Buffalo will take you past Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica.  That same four hour drive on I-70 from Denver to Grand Junction takes you past no towns of notable size... essentially just parkland and ski resorts.

[agentsteel53]

I wonder why (as of 2012 or so) NM gets one page, and AZ gets two.  AZ has a lot less random scattered towns; most of the population density can be represented on the Phoenix inset.

[DTComposer]

Given the different density out west, I understand the larger scale.  On the Thruway, a four hour drive from Albany to Buffalo will take you past Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica.  That same four hour drive on I-70 from Denver to Grand Junction takes you past no towns of notable size... essentially just parkland and ski resorts.

Oh, I agree there's plenty of rural space that doesn't need a larger scale. But while that four-hour drive on I-70 may not offer much, that same four hours on I-25 takes you through the 4.5 million people of the Front Range (Cheyenne-Denver-Pueblo), comparable to your Thruway drive.

Other ~four-hour drives get you:
Santa Barbara-Los Angeles-San Diego (17 million+, 21 million if you include the Inland Empire);
Dallas-Austin-San Antonio (11 million+);
Santa Rosa-San Francisco-San Jose-Salinas (8 million+);
Seattle-Portland-Salem (7 million+);
Sacramento-Stockton-Fresno-Bakersfield (6 million+)
etc.

My point being that those higher-density corridors shouldn't be "penalized" with larger-scale/less-detailed maps because the state(s) they happen to be in also have a lot of rural space.

[US 41]

Does anyone know when the release date is for the 2015?

[The High Plains Traveler]

Amazon has shipped mine as of today. I decided to get the non-Walmart version for once.

[Kniwt]

To RMcN's credit, their iPad app updated for free last night to the 2015 edition.

Haven't done the exhaustive search, but I'm happy that at least: (1) "LONELIEST ROAD" on Nevada US50 is now spelled correctly; and (2) Indiana SR641 is now shown accurately.

[US 41]

It's already out, and it's only April!? Damn. I thought it would probably come out in late May or June.

[tdindy88]

Coming out in May or June....ha! We wish.

[DandyDan]

IIRC, the following states would be spread out on two pages at a time:

• AZ/NM
• AR/LA/MS
• CT/MA/RI
• DE/MD (sometimes appearing together with VA/WV)
• KY/TN
• ME/NH/VT
• NV/UT
• NC/SC
• ND/SD
• VA/WV (sometimes appearing together with DE/MD)

I wonder when this practice was discontinued? I really miss seeing multiple states on the same map.

I vaguely recall seeing a 70's era RMcN atlas which had KY and TN together over 4 pages, with the western half of each occupying the first 2 pages and the eastern half the second 2.

I got another question, why do some insets exist?  I don't see a point in Elmira, NY getting one.  Sierra Vista, AZ is another.  That one is mostly Fort Huachuca and they don't show much of anything on there.

[hobsini2]

Amazon has shipped mine as of today. I decided to get the non-Walmart version for once.

So I guess you are going to have to be the one who tells us what city insets have been added, etc. lol Thanks in advance.

[Kniwt]

what city insets have been added, etc.

That's one of the downsides of having the digital version, and having it automatically update to the new edition: I can't play Spot the Differences between the 2014 and 2015 editions.

I think these are some differences, though, and a couple of random notes:
The whole south Texas I-69C, I-69E, I-2 thing is on the map now.
Arkansas I-540 is still 540, which apparently just went out of date this week.
The Eisenhower Tunnel in Colorado still shows as either an 11-mile tunnel or a closed 11-mile construction area, can't quite tell which.
Arizona SR 195 around Yuma is now included.
Arizona "TEMP US 89" is shown; actual US 89 is shown as under construction but not closed.
US 101 in Willits, Calif., is shown under construction but not on the new alignment that's being built. (No dashed line.)
The Stockton, Calif., SR4 short freeway extension under construction is not shown.
The insets for Calgary and Edmonton are still woefully small and are too close-in to include the new beltways.

[bugo]

Arizona "TEMP US 89" is shown; actual US 89 is shown as under construction but not closed.

When was the last TEMP US highway listed in a RMN atlas?  I remember TEMP US 70 running along AR 24 and AR 27 along with US 71 but this was a long time ago.

[Mapmikey]

When did TEMP US 20 in Idaho go away? It is in the 1961 RMcN but the next one up I have is 1986...

Mapmikey

[oscar]

When did TEMP US 20 in Idaho go away? It is in the 1961 RMcN but the next one up I have is 1986...

Sometime between the 1973 edition (which has it) and the 1976 edition (which doesn't).

[bandit957]

I vaguely recall seeing a 70's era RMcN atlas which had KY and TN together over 4 pages, with the western half of each occupying the first 2 pages and the eastern half the second 2.

I have a 1976 RMcN like this.