I'll bet there is a topic for this somewhere, but a friend of mine just sent me the link to this map, and I had to share.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salem.com%2FPages%2FSalemMA_Parking%2F00944EDD-000F8513.0%2Fparkmap.jpg&hash=845fe1079949f01a08ca2004f3a3cf525397882d)
so let's see - we've got:
* cutout US-114 for MA-114
* black square US-107 for MA-107
* Iowa state route 1A (note white margin outside black border; very lovely detail) for MA-1A
and to top it off... check out the interstate 128 shield at upper left!
:ded:
was this some kind of perverted roadgeek who put this together as an elaborate joke?
This map was prepared by a GIS person. The precise-looking roadway footprints (probably ROW actually) and sloppy street labels on centerlines is a pretty strong clue to that. And what's the deal with the weird fill pattern on the Essex / Liberty pedestrian areas?
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 01:58:14 PM
And what's the deal with the weird fill pattern on the Essex / Liberty pedestrian areas?
someone floodfilled with the wrong pattern, that's for sure.
also where would they bother getting two different US route shields? the 107 is a pretty good rendition of '70 spec; not sure where the 114 came from.
I like the little "Interstate 128" shield, myself. :-D
If the correct shields were used, I could easily give that map an A+.
Roadmaps within advertisements in newspapers are generally the absolute worst, imo.
I was going to chide it for not showing the new Bridge St. Bypass (MA 107 relocated) and the current configuration of the MA 107/114 interchange (the court building was expanded taking out the southwest cloverleaf ramps) but the August 2004 date of the map makes those points moot.
The roads and ramps shown are indeed correct... for 2004.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2013, 02:43:30 PM
If the correct shields were used, I could easily give that map an A+.
Roadmaps within advertisements in newspapers are generally the absolute worst, imo.
Check out the ones in hotel/motel guides. They (and the advertisement ones) make the above look like a work of art.
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 01:58:14 PM
This map was prepared by a GIS person.
As someone who did GIS stuff in undergrad, I am constantly bemused as to how being a GIS person seems to always preclude any and all aesthetic sense. Like, preparing something that doesn't look like it was designed by a 3rd grader just isn't that difficult, even using clunky GIS programs.
Quote from: wphiii on August 02, 2013, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 01:58:14 PM
This map was prepared by a GIS person.
As someone who did GIS stuff in undergrad, I am constantly bemused as to how being a GIS person seems to always preclude any and all aesthetic sense. Like, preparing something that doesn't look like it was designed by a 3rd grader just isn't that difficult, even using clunky GIS programs.
What I was getting at was the tendency of people who know how to use professional GIS products to care more about having precisely-drawn data than any other aspects of the map. Similarly, if the roadgeeks here were making the map, the shields would all be perfectly to spec (if not MassDOT's spec), and all the routes would be shown on the correct streets, but the alignment of the streets themselves would be less precise, or the whole thing would be an aerial photo with labels overlaid. People with different backgrounds tend to focus on different aspects of mapmaking. Generally, the only people who make beautiful maps are the ones who focus primarily on making beautiful maps.
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 03:12:50 PM
Generally, the only people who make beautiful maps are the ones who focus primarily on making beautiful maps.
My point was just how odd I've always found that, because I have sufficient experience to know that it takes very little effort to not just throw aesthetics completely out the window.
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 03:12:50 PMall the routes would be shown on the correct streets
As one who grew up a few miles from that area, the route markers on that Salem map are indeed shown/placed on the correct streets (for the era). It's just the 3-digit shields that are incorrect. The 1A shield is somewhat forgivable because it's more of a generic MUTCD state shield.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 02, 2013, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 03:12:50 PMall the routes would be shown on the correct streets
As one who grew up a few miles from that area, the route markers on that Salem map are indeed shown/placed on the correct streets (for the era). It's just the 3-digit shields that are incorrect. The 1A shield is somewhat forgivable because it's more of a generic MUTCD state shield.
I didn't bother to fact-check the various routes shown on the map. But in general, a roadgeek is more likely to make a map with correct route information than a non-roadgeek at a GIS workstation. In GIS, you don't draw the map, you pull in one or more datasets and tell the software how to draw it. Many of these datasets (such as TIGER) might be outdated or simply wrong about the path a given marked route follows from time to time. And only a roadgeek is going to notice and try to correct such an error. Most GIS specialists aren't roadgeeks, which is why datasets contain errors like that to begin with.
But I suppose I'm rambling now, as I've just devoted a whole paragraph to a type of error that wasn't present in the "terrible" map in the original post.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 02, 2013, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 03:12:50 PMall the routes would be shown on the correct streets
As one who grew up a few miles from that area, the route markers on that Salem map are indeed shown/placed on the correct streets (for the era). It's just the 3-digit shields that are incorrect. The 1A shield is somewhat forgivable because it's more of a generic MUTCD state shield.
What gets me on the map is that there are not two, not three, but four different shields for the routes in the area, all of which are Massachusetts state routes. I can understand the MA-128 error as IIRC, it is a freeway near there, but the others are nuts.
I thought as I was growing up that the 'terrible maps' prize would go to those wildly imaginative folks who come up with maps for new housing developments; the maps were WAY out of scale and more often than not, US 75 would be labeled (as text or a shield image, either one) as 'I-75'.
But since then, the maps I see that guests get from the car rental places at the airport definitely go to the head of the fingernails-on-blackboard line. >ugh<, cringing just thinking about it LOL....
It can't cost that much (or be that much more trouble to go to) to get accurate, correctly-scaled maps printed up.
Quote from: txstateends on August 03, 2013, 04:01:45 AM
It can't cost that much (or be that much more trouble to go to) to get accurate, correctly-scaled maps printed up.
That's probably the assumption that leads to these terrible maps being published.
"Hello Mr. Professional Cartographer and/or Graphic Designer. I'd like a map for my marketing materials.
How much? Nevermind, I'll draw it myself in Word."
See also: Clients From Hell (http://clientsfromhell.net)
I think I might know where the circle 1A shield came from: http://goo.gl/maps/QZTX6 :nod:
As for the US shields, everyone just refers to all routes regardless of class here as "Route XX", so maybe they saw "US Route" and thought that was correct. It's not like anyone actually pays attention to the signs or anything.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 02, 2013, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: vtk on August 02, 2013, 03:12:50 PMall the routes would be shown on the correct streets
As one who grew up a few miles from that area, the route markers on that Salem map are indeed shown/placed on the correct streets (for the era). It's just the 3-digit shields that are incorrect. The 1A shield is somewhat forgivable because it's more of a generic MUTCD state shield.
No, that's Alabama, not a circle.
holy crap Interstates in 1930
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fia700506.us.archive.org%2FBookReader%2FBookReaderImages.php%3Fzip%3D%2F23%2Fitems%2Freportofstateroa1927mary%2Freportofstateroa1927mary_jp2.zip%26amp%3Bfile%3Dreportofstateroa1927mary_jp2%2Freportofstateroa1927mary_0018.jp2%26amp%3Bscale%3D0%26amp%3Brotate%3D0&hash=3e2eced9637c9d69470aecb4c936b9fdab345bf3)
http://archive.org/details/reportofstateroa1927mary
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 01:50:10 PM
* cutout US-114 for MA-114
* black square US-107 for MA-107
* Iowa state route 1A (note white margin outside black border; very lovely detail) for MA-1A
I can't even count how many maps I've seen from state, county, and municipal GIS departments that have shields like that. I think that "state highway" circle must be a default style in ArcGIS. But the US shields might not be the fault of the software programmers. Rather, it may be that the city erroneously classified that road as "US 114", and the software simply used a corresponding shield.
Quote from: usends on August 05, 2013, 09:45:07 AMRather, it may be that the city erroneously classified that road as "US 114", and the software simply used a corresponding shield.
As one who grew up in the neighboring town of Marblehead; I can say with reasonable certainty that nobody in the City of Salem would classify Route 114 as a US road/highway. I could see somebody making that mistake w/1A because that route is an offshoot/alternate of US 1.
Given that only the 3-digit routes
in Salem (107 & 114) have the erroneous US shields tells me that the user of the software either did not have a 3-digit state shield set-up nor couldn't find/set-up one.
As towards why the 107 & 114 show different styles of US shields may be due to either the user doing one of the routes first then plotting the other (w/a different type of shield) at different times. Or the user applied a different shield for a route containing two
1's in it (114) vs. a route containing only a single
1 (107). Heck, I've seen similar practices in the field all the time.
Car dealer ads are where shields (everything's a warped US Route shield) and maps (no attempt at scale) and directions (we're 15 minutes from everywhere...except our competitor on the other side of town) go to die. Which is my useless pet theory of why car manufacturers really offer navigation systems...
The only map gaffe that really grates my carrot is when route shields and markers are placed right in the middle of the intersection, giving little clue as to where to go next.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2013, 02:43:30 PM
Roadmaps within advertisements in newspapers are generally the absolute worst, imo.
Quote from: Brandon on August 02, 2013, 02:51:02 PM
Check out the ones in hotel/motel guides.
With few exceptions, almost any thumbnail sized map in an advertisement, brochure, directory, etc. competes for "worst".
Stuff like this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F13Bkan4&hash=e81e8e7e3c0d3cbb92fa3b47958418a1bd83d757)
I remember such cringe-inducing maps in hotel directories in the early '90s–hating their inaccuracies and yet finding some kind of odd charm in them.
Here's an especially awful one I spotted on a promotional mailing a few months back. It's got that lazy thing going on where every road is depicted as a straight line or a perfect arc...and to add insult to injury, it uses US-style shields for every state route!
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SaRUxxtHjVo/UHlZQc4fYbI/AAAAAAAAG8U/bwswlqwS1ho/s800/img072.jpg)
Actually, I don't have a problem with that simplified geometry; it makes it less confusing for people who just want to figure out their sequence of left and right turns. The only reason I-270 is curved is because everyone knows it's a circle, and the curvature gives an intuitive hint as to which side of Columbus we're looking at.
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 08, 2013, 02:00:06 PM
...and to add insult to injury, it uses US-style shields for every state route!
Yeah, not only are the shields bad, but they also left off the roadnames for each of those highways. I'm assuming locals would typically refer to those roads not by their highway number, but rather by their names, "Broad", "Main", etc. correct?
I don't actually mind those shield shapes, or that font. the font on the street names is pretty crap, though.
Quote from: usends on August 08, 2013, 04:45:50 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on August 08, 2013, 02:00:06 PM
...and to add insult to injury, it uses US-style shields for every state route!
Yeah, not only are the shields bad, but they also left off the roadnames for each of those highways. I'm assuming locals would typically refer to those roads not by their highway number, but rather by their names, "Broad", "Main", etc. correct?
Maybe not that far east. IIRC, Broad St becomes Columbus Rd, and Main St becomes National Rd. I suspect people just use the route numbers out there. 161 is a freeway, and I think that Worthington Rd is the new name for old 161.
Quote from: vtk on August 08, 2013, 07:30:36 PM161 is a freeway, and I think that Worthington Rd is the new name for old 161.
Worthington Road was the old name too. Some parts got new names (I think one is called Moots Run Road) when they were made into dead ends because of the freeway.
Even before the bypass was built, I would often hear people refer to Worthington Road simply as "One Sixty-One", for whatever reason.
Quote from: vtk on August 08, 2013, 04:11:58 PM
Actually, I don't have a problem with that simplified geometry; it makes it less confusing for people who just want to figure out their sequence of left and right turns. The only reason I-270 is curved is because everyone knows it's a circle, and the curvature gives an intuitive hint as to which side of Columbus we're looking at.
Fair enough. Personally, I find it makes things a bit
more confusing, since it makes roads appear parallel that aren't, but I've had a lifelong fixation with maps, so I won't pretend the way I look at them is representative of the general public.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 08, 2013, 06:31:47 PM
I don't actually mind those shield shapes, or that font. the font on the street names is pretty crap, though.
I don't mind the shield shape either. It's just that the roadgeek in me gets miffed at OH 16 and OH 310 getting US shields. :P
Maybe not "terrible", but should we expect better from a DOT?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRfdNPhCUAAVmEv.jpg) (http://pic.twitter.com/prfhnL0WGj)
What's most irksome about this is the huge gap between 70/71 and Fulton St (they are actually adjacent) and the distorted ramps which result from that. Also, they messed up the name of Rich St — Main St Connector both on the map and in the directions for the detour.
Reopening this topic...
A Kohls near my had a Grand Reopening recently (for those of you that shop there, the nicest change was moving the customer service area to the front of the story, not the back!). Here's the map they published for people to find it:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FKohlsMap.gif&hash=2a051e0ec21003916f65c03241cef044ae014ae5) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/KohlsMap.gif.html)
And here's an actual map of the area:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FKohlsMap2.jpg&hash=f3daaec913ae1477d9f57ae0824e70f8492f7153) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/KohlsMap2.jpg.html)
Now, to those unfamiliar with the area, maybe it does appear the NJ Turnpike is very close to the store. And I'm sure someone from Kohls looked at the Google Maps you see above and drew up their map bsed on that. Except...the store is over 2 miles away from the NJ Turnpike...and even then it's an unsigned overpass! There's no actual interchange with the Turnpike (and note they use NJ Turnpike N...where the N doesn't even make sense). It's county Rt. 632/678, not State Rt. 632/678. And some other variables that most people not familiar with the area won't get. But to say it's at the corner of the NJ Turnpike N is about as poor of a landmark as one would get, with the numerous stores located elsewhere in the area up and down Rt. 45.
Well, put it this way - if you know the area, the map is of no value. If you're not from the area, maybe the route numbers would be fine...but don't start looking at the NJ Turnpike...if you even realize you're going over the highway to begin with!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 09, 2014, 07:32:18 PM
Well, put it this way - if you know the area, the map is of no value. If you're not from the area, maybe the route numbers would be fine...but don't start looking at the NJ Turnpike...if you even realize you're going over the highway to begin with!
Nice to see another local on here, considering I grew up a couple miles up the road at the northern end of 45. I think the Kohl's opened well after I moved out of Gloucester County, but I remember the KMart next to it. The "600" series County secondary road numbers mean nothing to most people. I'm probably the only one from my home town who could identify Almonesson Road as CR 621, for example. The road names and SR 45 do help, and agreed that showing the Turnpike does nothing for anyone except those of us who studied our Franklin Maps of Gloucester County over the years.
Quote from: formulanone on August 05, 2013, 03:42:18 PM
Car dealer ads are where shields (everything's a warped US Route shield) and maps (no attempt at scale) and directions (we're 15 minutes from everywhere...except our competitor on the other side of town) go to die. Which is my useless pet theory of why car manufacturers really offer navigation systems...
The only map gaffe that really grates my carrot is when route shields and markers are placed right in the middle of the intersection, giving little clue as to where to go next.
I am always amazed that a Kia dealership off I-71 in Medina has authentic shield images in their map in ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhVGiK0uzp8), not horrible oddball ones. The state routes are in ovals, but in Ohio, that's more forgivable than it would be in Mass where a square would be better. (No endorsement of said dealer implied--only mentioned because I notice the shields in their ads)
On the DCTA (Denton County Transportation Authority) (Texas) website, the map of their commuter rail is so bad that it does not even show the correct alignment of the tracks through Lewisville. That's right. they only have one rail line and couldn't even get it right.
Not only that, SH 121 and SH 121 BUS are shown to be US Highways, and FM 407 around Bartonville is totally wrong, and it shows FM 3040 extending W of FM 2499, which is incorrect.
https://www.dcta.net/images/uploads/content_files/a-train_files/atrainline.pdf (https://www.dcta.net/images/uploads/content_files/a-train_files/atrainline.pdf)
The Connecticut Tercentenary Map (1935) is terrible. Here's a scan from an ebay seller: http://www.jumpingfrog.com/images/epm14mar12/mmm2021b.jpg
It's touristy, so you can excuse lack of detail, omission of smaller routes, simplification of alignment, even missing changes less than a year out; but this map has so. many. typos. Just from the partial scan area, you can find:
CT 114 as "111"
US 6 overlaps CT 69 north of Waterbury
CT 10A as "104"
CT 122 as "6" - what?
Part of CT 175 as "75"
Part of CT 190 as "90"
CT 160 as "60"
Part of CT 83 as "82"
CT 141 as "142"
CT 148 as "82"
Were the mapmakers working off a handwritten original?
Lately I've become more and more dissatisfied with ODOT's 2011 highway map (that's the latest edition!) and the 2012 rail map.
The highway map was issued in 2011, prominently featuring the new governor and lt. governor. I suspect that was the primary motivation. No style changes were made over the 2009 edition, though notable changes to the highway system in 2009 and 2010 are shown. Old errors persist. The map claims to be valid for 2011—2013; it is now 2014 and no new map has been issued. I could list several faults with the map, but they're pretty much all just symptoms of a mechanical execution with no attention given to improving clarity or aesthetics.
The rail map is dated 2012, but it's really just the 2011 highway map with the highways rendered in gray and black lines, and railroads overlaid in thick colored lines. I'm sure the lines are so thick for the sole purpose of making them stand out compared to the highways, but this reduces clarity at junctions; the highways should have been made thinner and/or lighter instead. The city insets on the back are, again, grayscale versions of their highway map counterparts, with colored lines overlaid for the railroads. Where CSX and NS tracks run adjacent in Columbus, the map avoids drawing one atop the other by fudging the geometry, allowing the thick lines to run side by side. However, rather than simply adjust the map artwork, they adjusted the base GIS data, separating the tracks by about a mile. On the front this looks okay, but in the Columbus inset, it makes the lines physically separated, one of them appearing to be on the wrong side of I-71. I'm not entirely sure what audience this map is intended for.