I know it's early, but I guess I'll start the topic. My wishlist for the 2015 is to put the following cities in inset maps: Grand Junction, CO; Waterloo, IA; Fall River, MA; Mansfield, OH; Lima, OH; and Clarksville, TN. I also hope I-69 is shown in Texas on the north side of Houston.
Watch, the 2015 will be out in June 2014. :ded:
Much, much too early, IMHO. I remember when they didn't come out until November or December.
Actually, lately RMcN has been releasing 201x atlases as soon as the preceding April or May, and that keeps moving back. At some point, if that trend persists, RMcN will release a 201x atlas in November or December of 201x-2, in time for the holiday gift-buying season.
Quote from: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 11:53:25 AM
Watch, the 2015 will be out in June 2014. :ded:
Much, much too early, IMHO. I remember when they didn't come out until November or December.
Sounds a bit like how Ford's been releasing its new Mustang models every year since 2010 (2010 model rolled out in March/April 2009); new model rolling out in the spring rather than the fall.
And, it is high likely to placing the I-2 in far south Texas in Brownsville metro area for 2015 Rand McNally Road Atlas. I have heard the 2014 AAA road atlas first shown I-2 on the atlas!
Also I am hoping Rand McNally able to convert from state highway to state freeway for Loop 303 in west of Phoenix metropolitan area for 2015 RM road atlas due the Loop 303 freeway upgrade will complete by fall 2014.
Grand Parkway (TX-99) from I-10 to US 290 should have a new green toll road line which was completed since Dec 21st, 2013, that means might have chance seeing that new segment should be on 2015 RM Road Atlas but Houston Metropolitan map should be expand and rescale the map for best fit due extensive growth in Houston, Texas....same stuff as Phoenix Arizona too due my good friend told me Phoenix metropolitan map from USA RM road atlas should expand the metropolitan coverage down to Casa Grande (Pinal County) by I-8 and I-10 intersection.
Las Vegas metro map should be update also at CC-215 beltway for freeway line segment from Jones Blvd to Alliante Parkway in 2015 edition due the full freeway complete sometimes later this year. However Alliante Pkwy to 5th Street segment will complete sometimes in 2016 or 2017 should need blue dash line (under construction) due soon to starting construction for that segment at CC-215.
AAA does have I-2, I-69C and I-69E on it's Texas page of the 2014 atlas along with I-69 around Houston, but no exit numbers (not sure if there are even any out there.) As for the OP, I highly doubt they would have Lima or Mansfield on the insets.
There will be a new goat.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2014, 01:09:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 11:53:25 AM
Watch, the 2015 will be out in June 2014. :ded:
Much, much too early, IMHO. I remember when they didn't come out until November or December.
Sounds a bit like how Ford's been releasing its new Mustang models every year since 2010 (2010 model rolled out in March/April 2009); new model rolling out in the spring rather than the fall.
This has been going on for years. Like back in December of 1986, when Chevy first introduced its Corsica (sedan) and Beretta (coupe) twins to the public, even though they were 1988 models!
As for new models debuting in the spring, this trend started around at least 1992, when Chrysler rolled out its LH sedans (Intrepid/Concorde/Vision) for the first time, but as 1993 models, IIRC.
Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2014, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2014, 01:09:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 11:53:25 AM
Watch, the 2015 will be out in June 2014. :ded:
Much, much too early, IMHO. I remember when they didn't come out until November or December.
Sounds a bit like how Ford's been releasing its new Mustang models every year since 2010 (2010 model rolled out in March/April 2009); new model rolling out in the spring rather than the fall.
This has been going on for years. Like back in December of 1986, when Chevy first introduced its Corsica (sedan) and Beretta (coupe) twins to the public, even though they were 1988 models!
As for new models debuting in the spring, this trend started around at least 1992, when Chrysler rolled out its LH sedans (Intrepid/Concorde/Vision) for the first time, but as 1993 models, IIRC.
Per your examples; the 2nd model year of all those cars rolled out at the usual time (fall). The '89 Beretta/Corsica rolled out in the fall of 1988 and Chrysler's '94 model of its cab-forward LH-cars rolled out in the fall of '93.
In contrast, the 2010
through 2015 Mustangs have all rolled out in the spring of 2009 through 2014 respectively (the 2015 Mustang will go on sale this April); regardless of whether the new model year was restyled or a carry-over.
That's the difference.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2014, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 13, 2014, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2014, 01:09:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 11:53:25 AM
Watch, the 2015 will be out in June 2014. :ded:
Much, much too early, IMHO. I remember when they didn't come out until November or December.
Sounds a bit like how Ford's been releasing its new Mustang models every year since 2010 (2010 model rolled out in March/April 2009); new model rolling out in the spring rather than the fall.
This has been going on for years. Like back in December of 1986, when Chevy first introduced its Corsica (sedan) and Beretta (coupe) twins to the public, even though they were 1988 models!
As for new models debuting in the spring, this trend started around at least 1992, when Chrysler rolled out its LH sedans (Intrepid/Concorde/Vision) for the first time, but as 1993 models, IIRC.
Per your examples; the 2nd model year of all those cars rolled out at the usual time (fall). The '89 Beretta/Corsica rolled out in the fall of 1988 and Chrysler's '94 model of its cab-forward LH-cars rolled out in the fall of '93.
In contrast, the 2010 through 2015 Mustangs have all rolled out in the spring of 2009 through 2014 respectively (the 2015 Mustang will go on sale this April); regardless of whether the new model year was restyled or a carry-over. That's the difference.
The Mustang originally came out early as well, but it was called a 1964-1/2 model instead of a 1965.
Quote from: Brandon on January 13, 2014, 03:59:08 PMThe Mustang originally came out early as well, but it was called a 1964-1/2 model instead of a 1965.
Well aware of such; but the '66 models rolled out in the fall of '65.
The whole correlation I have been
trying to point out here is that Rand McNally's
continuously rolling out (i.e.
every year) their new edition atlases earlier than the fall is just like Ford's
continuously rolling out its new Mustang models in spring
every model year since 2010.
Some video games are the same way, always a year ahead, i.e. Madden 15.
I find it quite odd that the 2009-14 Mustangs have come out earlier than the other models in the Ford lineup, despite being mostly the same as the previous model each time (the 2015 will be entirely new, so an early debut would be more suitable for that).
Quote from: Henry on January 14, 2014, 02:09:28 PM
I find it quite odd that the 2009 2010-14 Mustangs have come out earlier than the other models in the Ford lineup, despite being mostly the same as the previous model each time (the 2015 will be entirely new, so an early debut would be more suitable for that).
FTFY
It is indeed odd; but then again, Rand McNally has done such (launching their new/updated atlases) earlier every year as well.
Most magazines are released before their issue date as well. It's not all that unusual.
If you ask a Catholic, humans exist before their due date.
Getting back to the original topic, I would like to see insets of these places eventually:
Downtown Birmingham AL
Auburn/Opelika AL
Dothan AL
Redding CA
Victorville/Hesperia/Apple Valley CA
Oceanside CA extended east to include Escondido and I-15
Grand Jct CO
Boulder CO to be extended northeast to include Longmont and I-25
Ft Collins CO to be extended south to include Loveland
Danbury CT
St Augustine FL
Naples/Bonita Springs FL
Gainesville FL
Ocala FL
Panama City FL
Port St Lucie FL
Port Charlotte FL
Downtown Tampa FL
Downtown Orlando FL
Athens GA
Gainesville GA
Valdosta GA
Boise ID extended west to include Nampa and Caldwell
DeKalb/Sycamore IL
Kankakee IL
Rockford IL extended east to include Belvidere
Kokomo IN
Dubuque IA
Waterloo IA
Downtown Louisville KY
Alexandria LA
Lake Charles LA
Lowell/Methuen MA
Sault Ste Marie MI
Pascagoula MS
Downtown Omaha NE
Portsmouth NH
Roswell NM
Ithaca NY
Saratoga Springs NY
Newburgh NY
Downtown Charlotte NC
Sandusky/Cedar Point OH
Downtown Columbus OH
Bend OR
Medford OR
Williamsport PA
Florence SC
Downtown Memphis TN
Downtown Nashville TN
San Angelo TX
Abilene TX
Brownsville TX
College Station/Bryan TX
Downtown Austin TX
Fredericksburg VA
Downtown Norfolk VA
Everett WA
Longview WA
Kennewick/Pasco/Richland WA
Beckley WV
Kamloops BC
Prince George BC
Kelowna BC
Lethbridge AB
Red Deer AB
Medicine Hat AB
Moose Jaw SK
Sarnia ON/Port Huron MI
Trois-Rivieres QU
Moncton NB
Acapulco Mexico
Cancun Mexico
Monterrey Mexico
Guadalajara Mexico
San Juan Puerto Rico
Ponce Puerto Rico
A lot of these places I took in to account because of they are college towns or tourist destinations on top of good size population.
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 15, 2014, 10:22:13 PM
Getting back to the original topic, I would like to see insets of these places eventually:
Lowell/Methuen MA
Downtown Lowell has an inset. Did you mean Lawrence? (Lowell and Methuen are 2 towns away.)
Quote from: 1 on January 15, 2014, 10:26:39 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on January 15, 2014, 10:22:13 PM
Getting back to the original topic, I would like to see insets of these places eventually:
Lowell/Methuen MA
Downtown Lowell has an inset. Did you mean Lawrence? (Lowell and Methuen are 2 towns away.)
Sorry. I should have said extend the map northeast to include Methuen/Lawrence.
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.
The Alaska map is pretty much useless at that scale. It's essentially at the same scale as the US map at the front of the atlas. They need to do what they have done with Quebec and enlarge the area where all the people (and roads) are. (That south-central area around Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula and up the Matsu Valley.)
I wouldn't mind a few full (or mostly full) page maps for Toronto and Montreal.
Texas needs even more room for city maps since the insets for Austin, El Paso and San Antonio are abysmal.
Atlanta needs a larger map, too. Put Hawai'i on its own page and then there will be room. Then Idaho gets two pages, probably with the northern 'panhandle' in an inset to avoid wasted space.
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.
Quote from: Brandon on January 13, 2014, 03:59:08 PM
The Mustang originally came out early as well, but it was called a 1964-1/2 model instead of a 1965.
The "64 1/2" model was actually a 1965 model, and it was titled as a 1965. However, there are small differences between the early '65 "'64 1/2" Mustang and the later '65 Mustangs. IIRC one of the differences was the headlight buckets on one used 3 screws and the other used 4.
Quote from: bugo on January 16, 2014, 12:01:07 AM
Quote from: Brandon on January 13, 2014, 03:59:08 PM
The Mustang originally came out early as well, but it was called a 1964-1/2 model instead of a 1965.
The "64 1/2" model was actually a 1965 model, and it was titled as a 1965. However, there are small differences between the early '65 "'64 1/2" Mustang and the later '65 Mustangs. IIRC one of the differences was the headlight buckets on one used 3 screws and the other used 4.
Another difference was that the early-production 65s (aka 64 1/2s) used generators whereas the later-production 65s started using alternators.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 15, 2014, 11:56:50 PM
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?
Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2014, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 15, 2014, 11:56:50 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2014, 02:57:47 PM
I wonder when this practice was discontinued? I really miss seeing multiple states on the same map.
IIRC, my 1945 map has this practice, and my 1965 does not. that narrows it down a little.
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2014, 02:57:47 PM
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.
My 1965 does (AR-LA-MS, DE-MD-VA-WV, among others). So nerr.
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.
Quote from: TCN7JM on January 16, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2014, 02:57:47 PM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 15, 2014, 11:56:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Henry on January 17, 2014, 11:39:28 AM
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.
I have an older (from the late 90's or early 00's) that has Connecticut on two pages.
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.
Quote from: 1 on January 16, 2014, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 15, 2014, 11:56:50 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: vdeane on January 19, 2014, 04:24:51 PM
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.
Does anyone know when the release date is for the 2015?
Amazon has shipped mine as of today. I decided to get the non-Walmart version for once.
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.
It's already out, and it's only April!? Damn. I thought it would probably come out in late May or June.
Coming out in May or June....ha! We wish.
Quote from: Henry on January 16, 2014, 02:57:47 PM
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.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 16, 2014, 11:20:20 PM
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.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 19, 2014, 01:35:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Kniwt on April 20, 2014, 03:45:48 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 20, 2014, 10:44:55 AM
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).
Quote from: DandyDan on April 19, 2014, 04:03:12 AM
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.
I've had a chance to look through it and do some quick comparisons to my 2013 (not 2014) version, so things I identify as new may not be new this year.
For Texas they have the I-69E/C and I-2 changes marked on the main map. Previously the stretch of freeway south from Corpus Christi to Robstown was I-69 on the map and was marked as such when I went through there last year; now it's shown as I-69E. Also I-69 on the Houston inset only, not the main map, and I-369 on the Texarkana inset only. Pieces of I-69 or its loops under construction south of Memphis and in Indiana.
For New Mexico, they finally have U.S. 64-87 shown as divided from Raton to the Texas line.
In Colorado, the large Metropolitan Districts have reappeared (they came back last year), so my little village is once again on the map. They continue to show CO-47 on the Pueblo inset as a two-lane road, though the west half is freeway and nearly all the rest divided highway.
In Minnesota, they show the realignment of U.S. 63 north of Rochester, and at Pine City they show a red line route, not marked, through Pine City that corresponds to the newly posted I-35 business loop (which probably isn't a state trunk highway). The Boise City, OK bypass is shown.
As also reported by others, the U.S. 89 Temporary detour is shown on the Arizona map.
Finally, they show the state of Chihuahua as being in what in the U.S. is called the Mountain Time Zone. (I think in Mexico it's their Central Zone). That change actually dates back to 1996 but few maps show it.
A nice feature for each state and province gives the length therein of major interstates, some U.S. highways, and even a few state routes. So, for Colorado they give the length of I-25, I-70, I-76 and U.S. 50.
Canada still gets short shrift, Mexico even less. They still have the crappy city inset maps for Calgary and Edmonton, which given the size of those places really ought to go out to the circumferential roads for each city. They do this for Winnipeg.
Have they finally given Louisiana the scale it needs?
I spotted the new 2015 Atlas at the Harvard Coop Bookstore this afternoon. As far as NC is concerned, they have increased the number of I-73 and I-74 shields, especially on the Triad area inset. I-74 now is signed along US 311 from I-40 east to I-73 and I-73 is signed north of there along US 220 to the Greensboro Loop and they've added the new exit numbers (not along I-74 though). Meanwhile, they still have I-74 signed along the US 74 Rockingham Bypass. As for other NC interstates, I-485 is shown as a complete loop around Charlotte and there is an I-495 shield on the short portion of the Knightdale Bypass shown on the Raleigh-Durham inset (not on the state map).
I've seen the 2015 paper edition at a local Barnes and Noble's, but am waiting for the Wal-Mart version (costs less, store directory sometimes comes in handy on the road). I didn't see any at a few southern Maryland Wal-Marts I checked last weekend. Have others seen 2015 editions at their Wal-Marts?
Quote from: oscar on May 07, 2014, 08:17:49 PM
I've seen the 2015 paper edition at a local Barnes and Noble's, but am waiting for the Wal-Mart version (costs less, store directory sometimes comes in handy on the road). I didn't see any at a few southern Maryland Wal-Marts I checked last weekend. Have others seen 2015 editions at their Wal-Marts?
I'll have to check Barnes and Noble tomorrow. Thanks for the info. They're not much more expensive than Walmart.
No atlases at the one I checked in California.
It ended up being a little more than a few dollars more than the Walmart version, but at least I got my copy.
On the "Fort Smith" inset for Arkansas, they show a section of future I-49 (through Fort Chaffee) with the freeway actually labeled as such in text. It also shows on the main state map with no label due to scale.
Just got mine
Changes I've noticed by state (nation)
US
more 2 lane roads shown on the national page. I-2 and the I-69's shown along with bypasses of cities.
AL
I-22 labeled and shown as complete to I-65. (I-22 is not labeled in MS.)
AZ
Shows new toll road bypass around Nogales, Mexico (not in AZ, but still new)
AR
New freewway in Fort Smith inset labeled Future I-49. SR 530 shown in gray. I-369 in Texarkana inset.
IN
SR 25 shown as complete.
IA
Some of US 20 just west of Dubuque shown in blue. More of SR 27 shown in blue south of IA City.
LA
New dashed line to Shreveport showing I-49 as new road not opened yet .
MI
2 mile US 31 dashed line removed from I-196/I-94 interchange to the 2 lane US 31 (just east of St. Joseph if i lost anyone).
MO
Shows new I-70 bridge in St. Louis.
MS
Shows dashed line for the future I-269 Memphis Bypass
NY
I-86 shown as complete to Binghampton, although I86 is not labeled in the Binghampton inset.
NC
I-73 labeled all the way north to its concurrency with 840. Sanford bypass complete. Charlotte Bypass complete.
OR
Part of US 97 shown as interstate quality in / south of Bend.
PA
US 219 shown in blue dashed line from Somerset to Myersdale.
TX
I-69 E / C shown with I-2. I-69 shown in Houston. I-69 in Robstown now shown as I-69E. In MX toll roads now have exit boxes. They've fixed various mistakes in MX. They changed MX180 to MX101 (it's now correct). MX101 shown as multilane.
UT
SR 7 shown as interstate quality spur to the St. George Mun. Airport.
Mexico
MX101 now labeled correctly. Shown as multilane from MAtamoros to MX97. Other small various errors corrected.
I guess we'll never see US 165 in Louisiana shown as the 4-lane that it is.
I picked up a copy today and noted what I'm sure is an error: an I-278E shield posted on the New Jersey map over the Grand Central parkway between I-278 at the Triboro (RFK) Bridge and I-678. This shield is not posted on the New York City inset map, nor on the southern New York and Long Island inset map.
Quote from: US 41 on May 17, 2014, 10:43:17 PM
UT
SR 7 shown as interstate quality spur to the St. George Mun. Airport.
Great, yet another place where RandMac implies a system interchange where none exists.
I found an error. Mexican Federal Route 57 is shown as 2 lane from Monterrey to San Luis Potosi. It is actually a 4 lane divided highway. I found that out when researching my trip to Panama. I am going to go that direction, rather than FR 180. FR 57 appears to be the safer and probably the faster option.
I got the Wal-Mart edition (with store directory added) of the 2015 RMcN atlas, earlier today at the Wal-Mart in Parkesburg, PA.
I'll take a closer look once I get back home in a few days. In recent years, I've found the updates to Wal-Mart's store directory more useful than the updates to the mapping, so I'm in no hurry.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 26, 2014, 11:10:11 AM
Canada still gets short shrift, Mexico even less. They still have the crappy city inset maps for Calgary and Edmonton, which given the size of those places really ought to go out to the circumferential roads for each city. They do this for Winnipeg.
Regina could go out a little more as well, with a new western bypass being built. But at least a little of the new bypass is shown (perhaps jumping the gun a little on its opening to traffic), as is the completion of Saskatoon's Circle Drive freeway.
The short shrift given to Mexico is further aggravated by the change from the 2014 edition, to show topography as well as roads, with the roads harder to pick out from the topography. That's consistent with how the national-level maps for the U.S. and Canada are handled, but for those countries there are state/province-level maps that don't have the topography getting in the way of showing the roads. Mexico should get a few more pages, both to show the highway network without the distracting topography, as well as provide a better scale to show more detail. One page per estado would be overdoing it, but maybe most of Mexico on two additional pages without topography, the Yucatan Peninsula on a third page, and additional city insets (including at least Acapulco, Tijuana, and Monterrey) on a fourth page. Or two extra pages covering all of Mexico without topography, a third with more insets, and the fourth to cover Puerto Rico (an eighth of a page just doesn't cut it, and in particular has no room for a San Juan inset).
I spotted the 2015 Rand McNally this morning at a Staples in Springfield, Virginia, though I didn't buy a copy.
Mexico should have a few pages of its own, and Puerto Rico should be treated as a state and placed by Pennsylvania. I'd also like to see a page for the USVI as well.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 18, 2014, 01:30:02 AM
I picked up a copy today and noted what I'm sure is an error: an I-278E shield posted on the New Jersey map over the Grand Central parkway between I-278 at the Triboro (RFK) Bridge and I-678. This shield is not posted on the New York City inset map, nor on the southern New York and Long Island inset map.
That same error is in the 2013 edition.
I am actually surprised that Rand McNally even puts Puerto Rico in the atlas. More should be done for Mexico though.
Quote from: Brandon on May 27, 2014, 10:11:28 PM
Mexico should have a few pages of its own, and Puerto Rico should be treated as a state and placed by Pennsylvania. I'd also like to see a page for the USVI as well.
But why? Puerto Rico is not a state. It's the United States-Canada-Mexico road atlas, not the "and random bits of territory that belong to them at the moment" road atlas.
Quote from: kkt on May 29, 2014, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 27, 2014, 10:11:28 PM
Mexico should have a few pages of its own, and Puerto Rico should be treated as a state and placed by Pennsylvania. I'd also like to see a page for the USVI as well.
But why? Puerto Rico is not a state. It's the United States-Canada-Mexico road atlas, not the "and random bits of territory that belong to them at the moment" road atlas.
Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. (even if not as permanent as the 50 states), getting a decent amount of visitation from the U.S. mainland, and probably more than the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, etc. But I'd wouldn't insert it after Pennsylvania, before or after Mexico is fine by me.
True, you can't drive there from the mainland, but same goes for Hawaii.
At least the AAA Atlas seems to care more about more than the 50 states in their coverage. Canadian provinces are covered thoroughly with four pages for just city insets (including downtown insets for Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec.) Their Mexico page, while featuring only two pages for the country, at least features a few city insets and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are covered on their own page with a city inset for San Juan plus a downtown inset. Of course, it does also feature Puerto Rico's well-known interstate highway system too...PR2?
To the question on car model years, I don't remember if it's from the Clean Air Act or a NHTSA regulation. A model year must contain January 1 of the calendar year, and cannot include any other January 1. Thus, the 2015 model year can stretch from Jan 2, 2014 to Dec 31, 2015.
From time to time, a model year is skipped. The manufacturer continues MY later than normal, say to October, then has an extended plant shutdown for a changeover/re-freshening. They bring the plant back up in Feb or Mar as MY+2.
Why should Puerto Rico being a territory affect its placement in an atlas at all? Just because it's a territory doesn't mean it's not as much a part of the US. It just means the residents there can't vote (or pay federal taxes).
Quote from: vdeane on May 29, 2014, 08:40:06 PM
Why should Puerto Rico being a territory affect its placement in an atlas at all? Just because it's a territory doesn't mean it's not as much a part of the US. It just means the residents there can't vote (or pay federal taxes).
Hell, they're thisclose to being a state as it is. The last vote had statehood winning easily over independence.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 18, 2014, 01:30:02 AM
I picked up a copy today and noted what I'm sure is an error: an I-278E shield posted on the New Jersey map over the Grand Central parkway between I-278 at the Triboro (RFK) Bridge and I-678. This shield is not posted on the New York City inset map, nor on the southern New York and Long Island inset map.
This has been there for several years now, may be as far back as 2008 when the atlas first started debuting in April of the year versus October.
I opted to buy a copy from Books-A-Million in Pensacola, as Walmart from here to NW Florida has yet to stock the Rand.
Noted that the Baldwin Beach Express is shown as completely open in Baldwin County, Alabama and signed with a CR 83 shield through to the interchange with I-10, which they show as complete and signed as Exit 49. The interchange is slated to open in October.
They also have the Mid-Bay Bridge Connector/Niceville Bypass (FL Toll 293) shown from FL 85 south to the Mid-Bay Bridge now. This fully opened in January of this year.
There was no 1983 Chevrolet Corvette (well, there was one...)
Quote from: oscar on May 27, 2014, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 26, 2014, 11:10:11 AM
Canada still gets short shrift, Mexico even less. They still have the crappy city inset maps for Calgary and Edmonton, which given the size of those places really ought to go out to the circumferential roads for each city. They do this for Winnipeg.
Regina could go out a little more as well, with a new western bypass being built. But at least a little of the new bypass is shown (perhaps jumping the gun a little on its opening to traffic), as is the completion of Saskatoon's Circle Drive freeway.
The short shrift given to Mexico is further aggravated by the change from the 2014 edition, to show topography as well as roads, with the roads harder to pick out from the topography. That's consistent with how the national-level maps for the U.S. and Canada are handled, but for those countries there are state/province-level maps that don't have the topography getting in the way of showing the roads. Mexico should get a few more pages, both to show the highway network without the distracting topography, as well as provide a better scale to show more detail. One page per estado would be overdoing it, but maybe most of Mexico on two additional pages without topography, the Yucatan Peninsula on a third page, and additional city insets (including at least Acapulco, Tijuana, and Monterrey) on a fourth page. Or two extra pages covering all of Mexico without topography, a third with more insets, and the fourth to cover Puerto Rico (an eighth of a page just doesn't cut it, and in particular has no room for a San Juan inset).
I'm pretty sure you can get a Mexico-based road atlas from some other publisher. I know I looked for one on Amazon once, and some of their offerings looked pretty interesting. Of course, it's in Spanish, but for place names that really doesn't matter.
I really wish they would give Columbus a little more love since it's always cut in half by the northern/southern pages.
Quote from: 6a on May 31, 2014, 06:59:07 PM
I really wish they would give Columbus a little more love since it's always cut in half by the northern/southern pages.
They do with a rather nice inset. lol Only thing that is missing for Columbus is a Downtown inset. But other than OSU, who really goes to Columbus? lol
Interstate 81 has a gap at Hagerstown (was present in the 2014 edition too). Check it out on the Maryland page.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 01, 2014, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: 6a on May 31, 2014, 06:59:07 PM
I really wish they would give Columbus a little more love since it's always cut in half by the northern/southern pages.
They do with a rather nice inset. lol Only thing that is missing for Columbus is a Downtown inset. But other than OSU, who really goes to Columbus? lol
The same argument could be made for San Jose, as it's been the largest city in the Bay Area for some time now.
Quote from: lamsalfl on May 17, 2014, 11:10:29 PM
I guess we'll never see US 165 in Louisiana shown as the 4-lane that it is.
How about my old hometown, Lafayette, LA with its 100k population still omitted from the US map?
Quote from: apjung on June 09, 2014, 10:34:50 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on May 17, 2014, 11:10:29 PM
I guess we'll never see US 165 in Louisiana shown as the 4-lane that it is.
How about my old hometown, Lafayette, LA with its 100k population still omitted from the US map?
At least they included DeRidder, LA. I sometimes wonder how they decide which towns get put on. Cities with 100K are left off, but towns with 2K are on.
Quote from: US 41 on June 10, 2014, 07:38:17 AM
At least they included DeRidder, LA. I sometimes wonder how they decide which towns get put on. Cities with 100K are left off, but towns with 2K are on.
What?
Quote from: lamsalfl on June 16, 2014, 12:12:50 AM
Quote from: US 41 on June 10, 2014, 07:38:17 AM
At least they included DeRidder, LA. I sometimes wonder how they decide which towns get put on. Cities with 100K are left off, but towns with 2K are on.
What?
He means that some cities with one hundred thousand people don't get an inset on the atlas, but some small towns with only two thousand people do get it.
Does DeRidder, LA really have an inset map? I'm finding it hard to believe a town of that size being on the map unless it were part of a larger metropolitan area's inset.
Quote from: tdindy88 on June 16, 2014, 06:19:33 AM
Does DeRidder, LA really have an inset map? I'm finding it hard to believe a town of that size being on the map unless it were part of a larger metropolitan area's inset.
No, if you scroll up, the actual question was Lafayette, LA labeling always being omitted from the main US map (2 pages) on the RmN atlas where I-49 ends at I-10. Lafayette could get 200,000 population and RmN would still omit it while Winnemucca or Elko, NV would be on the main US map.
After visits to Walmarts in 3 states (seems like last year all over again), I finally got my copy of the 2015 atlas, tracking it down at the Super Walmart in Woodsville NH (last one left). Overall, I'm pretty impressed, especially with the cover. Thank god all that yellow is gone! Also the RMcN iphone scanner/QR Code/etc on each page is gone, replaced with additional road condition information per state. The "box" also includes toll road information and the "how to calculate mileages" diagram.
Regarding the Northeast, here's the changes I've noticed:
NY:
I-86 extended to a point east of Binghamton (previously mentioned)
I-190 toll barrier at the Thruway finally removed
ME:
Big change here is the changing of the icon from a rest area to a service area to the plaza in between the Maine Turnpike and I-295's north end. Also bigger news is the showing of the Kennebunk service areas for the first time ever. Those in Gray (north of Portland) still not shown.
NH:
Two off-highway information centers, which were shown on the NH map as rest areas are no longer shown. These were located "on" I-93 in the Plymouth and Lincoln areas.
RI:
I-95 NB rest area near Exit 3 is no longer shown, since it closed a few years back.
VT:
I-91 SB rest area near Lyndonville has been restored
That's all I've noticed so far, from my "neck of the woods".
Nebraska's not generally a state which changes much, but I can't help but notice some errors, which probably go back a while. Some of the roads in the Omaha inset are either misnamed, shown as gravel instead of paved (the most ridiculous example being Giles Road, which is 4 lane divided), or missing altogether, like the southern extension of 96th Street, which was put in at least 8 years ago. Also, at various points, the scale is off. US 275/NE 92, which is L Street, is exactly half a mile from F Street and Q Street, but it's shown as being a lot closer to Q Street. Also on the main map, US 275 is freeway all the way to Fremont and not simply divided east of Valley and US 6/NE 31 is divided north of Gretna. Also, on both the main map and the Omaha inset, the road which used to be NE 38 gets shown as divided, uniquely amongst all city streets. If they did that for every street that was divided, there'd be a lot more divided streets shown. Does anyone ever bother to check what the actual status of the roads are?
Quote from: shadyjay on August 09, 2014, 10:57:39 PM
NY:
I-86 extended to a point east of Binghamton (previously mentioned)
I-190 toll barrier at the Thruway finally removed
They finally got rid of it!?! Only took nearly a decade.
More changes I've discovered:
NYC area:
I-80/I-95 between the GWB and the split in NJ is now signed solely as I-95.
"Ed Koch" added to the Queensboro Bridge (NYC detail insert only)
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel is now signed as the Hugh L Carey Tunnel
At some Wal-Mart Stores they have a "Map Rack" up by Customer Service in others it would be on the displays in the Book/Magazine Isle or section
Quote from: mapman1071 on August 12, 2014, 08:53:48 PM
At some Wal-Mart Stores they have a "Map Rack" up by Customer Service in others it would be on the displays in the Book/Magazine Isle or section
Or in my store's case, the automotive section which is where I found my copy Friday.
I just don't understand why Walmart, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) retail chains in the nation, can't be consistent with their layouts. In some stores, the books/magazines are in their own section (where they should be). In others, they're relegated to an aisle in the electronics department (which makes no sense). One should be able to walk into a Walmart anywhere in the country and know "roughly" where to find things.
I agree. I usually pick-up my Rand-McNally "present" in BJ's Wholesale Club. It has not been found for sale in any Club since I purchased my 2011 edition. And, by the way, WalMart is the world's largest retailer.
Quote from: shadyjay on August 16, 2014, 01:45:01 PM
I just don't understand why Walmart, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) retail chains in the nation, can't be consistent with their layouts. In some stores, the books/magazines are in their own section (where they should be). In others, they're relegated to an aisle in the electronics department (which makes no sense). One should be able to walk into a Walmart anywhere in the country and know "roughly" where to find things.
They do that on purpose. They want you to stay in the store longer, which means spending more money on things you see walking around the store looking for what you went there for.
Quote from: bugo on August 16, 2014, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 16, 2014, 01:45:01 PM
I just don't understand why Walmart, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) retail chains in the nation, can't be consistent with their layouts. In some stores, the books/magazines are in their own section (where they should be). In others, they're relegated to an aisle in the electronics department (which makes no sense). One should be able to walk into a Walmart anywhere in the country and know "roughly" where to find things.
They do that on purpose. They want you to stay in the store longer, which means spending more money on things you see walking around the store looking for what you went there for.
Walmart has a few planograms that are in use. In new construction, there are typically ~3 layouts that may be mirrored, all of which include a full grocery section. Every one I've seen built within the past 5-8 years is a standard small, medium, or large layout. Electronics are in the opposite corner of the bakery/deli, etc. The older ones are another story. Older Supercenters follow a standard planogram. What screws stuff up are the (rapidly disappearing) "classic" Walmarts where seemingly each store is different.
Is that someone complaining about not enough uniformity in a big box retailer?
:-D
Quote from: cl94 on August 16, 2014, 08:51:34 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 16, 2014, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 16, 2014, 01:45:01 PM
I just don't understand why Walmart, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) retail chains in the nation, can't be consistent with their layouts. In some stores, the books/magazines are in their own section (where they should be). In others, they're relegated to an aisle in the electronics department (which makes no sense). One should be able to walk into a Walmart anywhere in the country and know "roughly" where to find things.
They do that on purpose. They want you to stay in the store longer, which means spending more money on things you see walking around the store looking for what you went there for.
Walmart has a few planograms that are in use. In new construction, there are typically ~3 layouts that may be mirrored, all of which include a full grocery section. Every one I've seen built within the past 5-8 years is a standard small, medium, or large layout. Electronics are in the opposite corner of the bakery/deli, etc. The older ones are another story. Older Supercenters follow a standard planogram. What screws stuff up are the (rapidly disappearing) "classic" Walmarts where seemingly each store is different.
Yep, my wife's job is remodeling Walmarts. One other thing about that is they are constantly trying out new looks. For example one year she spent half her time on the road reconfiguring the main drags of the store (action alleys) to have pallets in the middle after they'd spent half the previous year reconfiguring those same aisles to not have pallets.