Well I figured I'd start this topic. The 2016 Rand McNally will be available to order online on April 15th. I always look forward to it coming out. The Rand McNally has its errors and there are several things we would all like to see changed in the atlas. However IMO the Rand McNally still produces the most accurate atlases.
Thing I want to see in the new atlas:
1) Hopefully they go back to the 2014 format for the Mexico map so its easier to read. It will be interesting to see if the Autopista Durango - Mazatlan is shown in green this year or if its even shown at all, as well as the northern bypass around Torreon.
2) I-540 changed to I-49 in Arkansas (I'm sure this will be shown)
3) Arkansas SR 530 south of Pine Bluff shown as a primary (red) road, not as a gray secondary road.
4) Eisenhower Tunnel not shown as an 11 mile long tunnel.
5) I'm pretty sure KS 4 will never be extended north in Topeka so get rid of the blue dashed line.
Things I would like to see that won't be in the new atlas.
1) Estado maps of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, and both Baja Californias. (similar to showing the Canadian provinces that are closest to the US), with inset maps of Monterrey, Saltillo, and Chihuahua.
Note: I haven't kept up very well with new roads that have been opened up.
A larger and bigger Toronto inset, with the coming of the West Durham (Hwy-412) and East Durham (Hwy=418) connectors showed under construction with Hwy-407 extension.
Btw, did they show a blue dashed line at Windsor, Ontario between the current end of Hwy-401 and Detroit River in the 2015 edition?
US 97 freeway/expressway segments in Oregon would be nice to see. We have 4-lane expressway on SR 34 between Corvallis to just west of Lebanon which never shows up on a R-M map. There is also a 4-mile stretch of 4-lane expressway on US 101 south of Brookings that is MIA. SR 62 is a 4-lane expressway to Eagle Point from I-5 with more traffic carried than I-5 has but you would never know it looking at a R-M map.
Rick
I would bet money that it still shows the entire state of Chihuahua in the wrong time zone. Wrong since at least the 2000 edition.
That map of Mexico is virtually useless in the scope of the entire atlas. Either treat it like Canada, or scrap it.
Not just virtually. Some lines are simply drawn inaccurately and could literally lead a driver astray.
In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2015, 07:59:52 AM
Not just virtually. Some lines are simply drawn inaccurately and could literally lead a driver astray.
Yeah, forever the 85 libre from Nvo. Laredo to Monterrey was shown as a 4 lane highway. MX 57 between MX 80 and Saltillo is shown as a 2 lane highway. Parts of MX 40 between Torreon and Saltillo are shown as a 2 lane highway. Hopefully MX 54 between Saltillo and Zacatecas is shown as a 4 lane highway in the new atlas but I wouldn't count on it.
The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition. Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".
Quote from: US 41 on April 12, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2015, 07:59:52 AM
Not just virtually. Some lines are simply drawn inaccurately and could literally lead a driver astray.
Yeah, forever the 85 libre from Nvo. Laredo to Monterrey was shown as a 4 lane highway. MX 57 between MX 80 and Saltillo is shown as a 2 lane highway. Parts of MX 40 between Torreon and Saltillo are shown as a 2 lane highway. Hopefully MX 54 between Saltillo and Zacatecas is shown as a 4 lane highway in the new atlas but I wouldn't count on it.
In a few of your examples alone, roads do not intersect where RMcN says they do, and/or they do intersect where RMcN doesn't say. This doesn't really happen on the US maps, but I would certainly not recommend navigating in Mexico by using the Rand.
Apparently it won't have I-41.
I'd like to see RMcN treat Mexico and Canada the same as the US and have proper city insets for Canadian cities. I'd also like to see a proper Puerto Rico map where it should be, between Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Adding Guam, the Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa couldn't hurt either as this is a US/Canada/Mexico atlas.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 12, 2015, 08:13:32 AM
In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.
But they are inaccurate also. Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 12, 2015, 08:13:32 AM
In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.
But the internet mapping are inaccurate at times also. Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip.
Quote from: leroys73 on April 12, 2015, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 12, 2015, 08:13:32 AM
In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.
But the internet mapping are inaccurate at times also. Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip.
Much agreed. I much prefer the larger picture while driving, and usually prefer the map put out by the state DOT above all others. Barring that, RMcN is second-best.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 12, 2015, 02:30:32 PM
The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition. Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".
Glad to see I'm not the only one that does that. I picked up a lot of habits from my dad, one that sticks with me to this day is having an atlas in the shitter.
Oh just great. This means my annual "I hate Walmart" battle... traveling to Walmarts in 5 states trying to find the stupid thing. Then when I get it, sit it side by side with the previous year's and compare.
I still have to (one of these years) send RMcN a message as to various inaccuracies, predominatly rest areas. Why don't they show service plazas on non-toll roads as service plazas? That just really "grinds my gears". The service plaza on the toll-free Major Deagan in NYC are shown that way. And why did they remove so many of the Rest Area-No Facilities from being shown in Southeastern Massachusetts?
But more importantly, there's a missing bridge on the VT map (VT/NH 11 between Springfield VT and Charlestown NH at I-91 Exit 7).
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 12, 2015, 02:30:32 PM
The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition. Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".
So Target gets the new atlas as soon as it comes out? I might have to go to Indy this next weekend and see if they have it. I already know Walmart won't have it until like mid May.
Quote from: US 41 on April 12, 2015, 07:55:38 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 12, 2015, 02:30:32 PM
The magazine basket in my bathroom eagerly awaits the new edition. Looks like I will be stopping by Target later this week, and then we can begin the game of "Find the Changes".
So Target gets the new atlas as soon as it comes out? I might have to go to Indy this next weekend and see if they have it. I already know Walmart won't have it until like mid May.
But not Wal-Mart, cause they brand it.
Quote from: Brandon on April 12, 2015, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on April 12, 2015, 05:54:49 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 12, 2015, 08:13:32 AM
In an age where internet mapping systems (Google, OSM/MapQuest, etc) are far more accurate, the RcM (IMO) will become more inaccurate and if it weren't for the paper map holdouts, it will become obsolete.
But the internet mapping are inaccurate at times also. Plus I like to see a larger picture when planning a road trip.
Much agreed. I much prefer the larger picture while driving, and usually prefer the map put out by the state DOT above all others. Barring that, RMcN is second-best.
Zoom out then :awesomeface:
Re: Zoom out.
Somewhat true. And one can also print on larger paper, though most people only ever think about 8.5x11.
However, each zoom level lose detail. The level of detail available in RMcN's state map of Nebraska, for example, is greater than that affotded by a zoomed-out view of Nebraska in Google Maps.
I frequently snip screenshots of Google Maps and paste them together in Paint for precisely this reason. It's a bit tedious, but it works.
At least print maps can be saved. Electronic maps are not saved.
Quote from: nexus73 on April 11, 2015, 06:55:31 PM
US 97 freeway/expressway segments in Oregon would be nice to see.
Indeed.
QuoteWe have 4-lane expressway on SR 34 between Corvallis to just west of Lebanon which never shows up on a R-M map.
Super-4. Just like OR 224, not sure I'd really mark differently as it already is.
QuoteThere is also a 4-mile stretch of 4-lane expressway on US 101 south of Brookings that is MIA. SR 62 is a 4-lane expressway to Eagle Point from I-5 with more traffic carried than I-5 has but you would never know it looking at a R-M map.
Rick
Not sure if these are divided or not; it's been years since I was on OR 62 in Medford.
With that said, the freeway portions of OR 18 and OR 22 should be on there if they aren't.
Quote from: rschen7754 on April 12, 2015, 04:42:53 PM
Apparently it won't have I-41.
I was hoping that would be in there, but seeing as how the approval was just finalized, it probably missed the cutoff for the Atlas.
I'm curious if they'll now show I-69 all the way through Houston on the inset.
It would be nice to see individual maps of the Northwest and Yukon Territories included in the Canadian section, along with full shots of all ten provinces, but I guess we'll never get to see either.
And seconded on the Mexican states idea, although it would be expensive to make maps of its 31 states (if I'm right), and thus less feasible compared to a full shot of the country as a whole.
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2015, 01:02:55 PM
It would be nice to see individual maps of the Northwest and Yukon Territories included in the Canadian section, along with full shots of all ten provinces, but I guess we'll never get to see either.
You can try a Canada-focused road atlas for that. Heck, the one I have devotes two pages to Nunavut, even though it has no highways, and there are no city insets to show the territory's few local roads.
How does one go about obtaining the RouteMaster atlas? The last time I tried to order it from Amazon.ca it couldn't be shipped to the United States.
Most likely the easiest way is to have friends in Canada you can ship it to who then will send it to you.
If you email them on their site they can send it.
My iPad RMcN app just auto-updated to the 2016 atlas, again this year for free. I guess I need to go make an extended visit to the toilet to scan for changes. :)
ETA: Yes, I-41 is there.
Quote from: Kniwt on April 14, 2015, 04:01:46 AM
My iPad RMcN app just auto-updated to the 2016 atlas, again this year for free. I guess I need to go make an extended visit to the toilet to scan for changes. :)
ETA: Yes, I-41 is there.
WITH US 41 marked alongside...
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 06:38:05 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on April 14, 2015, 04:01:46 AM
My iPad RMcN app just auto-updated to the 2016 atlas, again this year for free. I guess I need to go make an extended visit to the toilet to scan for changes. :)
ETA: Yes, I-41 is there.
WITH US 41 marked alongside...
That's cool! Any chance they show WI 175 along the Stadium Freeway yet? Not sure if that one is "official" yet, but if US 41 is showing along the new alignment...
quote fix --sso
Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 14, 2015, 09:49:23 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 14, 2015, 06:38:05 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on April 14, 2015, 04:01:46 AM
My iPad RMcN app just auto-updated to the 2016 atlas, again this year for free. I guess I need to go make an extended visit to the toilet to scan for changes. :)
ETA: Yes, I-41 is there.
WITH US 41 marked alongside...
That's cool! Any chance they show WI 175 along the Stadium Freeway yet? Not sure if that one is "official" yet, but if US 41 is showing along the new alignment...
quote fix --sso
Yes
I'm always most interested to see if RandMac does any layout changes from the previous edition. New insets are fun, but the real good stuff is when they give a state more room to show it at a reasonable scale.
In my opinion, a good atlas should have a two-page layout for every state that's not one of the tiny, east coast ones.
And every city of at least 100,000 should appear on an inset map, for sure.
Problem is, the use of digital maps means there is no incentive to change the layout. That costs money and paper maps are bringing in less and less every year, so they need to produce it as cheaply as possible. Companies like RandMac are recycling the same layout with cartography that's been updated as hastily as possible with less quality control so they can sell it for only 11 bucks.
Wouldn't it be great if one of these companies would create for us map nerds and road geeks a "premium" atlas? Something that's had all the bullshit errors that have plagued us for decades removed; layouts worked so you can actually see stuff in place like Louisiana; as many insets as they can cram in... Give it a good binding that's not going to fall apart in a year and include a protective cover to keep the dog-earring to a minimum.
I'd gladly shell out fifty bucks for something like that.
I know there are hard cover atlases out there, but the ones I've seen have the same shitty cartography as the cheapo models.
I'd make a good one myself; I have the skills and the desire; but there isn't enough time or any financial upside to make it worthwhile.
No, I'm afraid we're stuck with mediocre atlases forever.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 15, 2015, 01:05:39 AM
No, I'm afraid we're stuck with mediocre atlases forever.
Oh to have Gousha's maps back again. They were more readable to my eyes. I do like the idea of a premium grade atlas too.
Rick
If there's one state in the U.S. and A. that needs better coverage, it might be Louisiana.
I like the idea, triplemultiplex! I'd pay for a premium atlas as well.
Heard from Rand McNally from facebook. The update details are 6 new city and park inset maps: Canada's Banff, Kootenay, Glacier, and Yoho National Parks, 4 new inset maps in Texas - Abilene, Bryan/College Station, Killeen, and Tyler; and a new inset map reflecting the fast-growing Tri-Cities metro area in Washington state.
Quote from: bandit957 on April 15, 2015, 09:57:00 AM
If there's one state in the U.S. and A. that needs better coverage, it might be Louisiana.
Both that one and Maine could each use two pages. One page, front-to-front for each? Come on, RMcN!
Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Idaho, New Mexico, both Dakotas and Wyoming should all be on two pages.
Florida should be on a pair of two-page layouts like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
And there are so many large cities that deserve most-of-the-page coverages and scales.
Jacksonville, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Charlotte... I could go on.
American Map Co. Made the best maps and atlases. Too bad they are history. :angry:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 15, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Idaho, New Mexico, both Dakotas and Wyoming should all be on two pages.
Florida should be on a pair of two-page layouts like Pennsylvania or Ohio.
And there are so many large cities that deserve most-of-the-page coverages and scales.
Jacksonville, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Charlotte... I could go on.
I think Austin and San Antonio could be expanded too, especially Austin.
Not only that, I think some of the cities you mentioned like Jacksonville and Charlotte are lacking the City Center insets, at least my 2015 edition does.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 15, 2015, 03:31:55 PM
American Map Co. Made the best maps and atlases. Too bad they are history. :angry:
Mmm, I dunno. Maybe for the US scale... but on the regional scale, I'd say Thomas Brothers before RMN started nerfing them to the ground. I'm referring to TBM's early 2000's editions of their PNW and California atlases, and their Thomas Guides of the same time where the index maps were still useful for regional/county navigation because they included the arterial and secondary roads.
My Rand McNally iPad app got updated today. I guess I could take a look at it to see what's new. I'll probably buy one when it hits Walmart.
Is the iPad version missing a significant piece of California? I ask because, from everything I can see in my 2016, much of the eastern Sierra from Bishop northward along US 395 isn't there. It should be on the Northern California page, but it's cropped north-south through the state line at Lake Tahoe, missing everything to the east of there. (A tiny piece of it is visible on the Nevada page.)
I looked on all six of the California pages and didn't find it. Am I missing something?
I looked through a copy of the 2016 atlas at Barnes & Noble today, but didn't buy it yet.
As far as Iowa is concerned, they include the newly-relocated US 34 west of I-29, but they still show IA/NE 370 east of US 75.
There is a goof in the Des Moines inset: They include the Veterans Parkway (formerly Southwest Connector) between IA 5 and IA 28 as a four-lane divided highway. Although the ROW is there for four lanes, only two lanes were built north of Army Post Road. (This street will someday connect I-35 with downtown Des Moines.)
Last weekend Barnes and Noble didn't have it yet (in Bloomington, IN). I'm going to go back this weekend to look for it again now that it has been confirmed some have it now (maybe the one in Plainfield this time).
The 2016 version has made it to the greater Boston area Barnes and Nobles. Something to watch out for, a couple of the standard edition paperback atlases I looked through had some production errors where pages had not been cut correctly and had been bent back under proceeding pages, making half of a map page unavailable. This was the case for the western part of NC in one of atlases I was looking at.
Speaking of NC, the 2016 city insets do show where new interstates are being constructed-Fayetteville, Greensboro, Wilmington (though where's the Winston-Salem construction?), they have added exit numbers for I-73 south of Greensboro on the state map, but not for I-74. They do show I-485 complete around Charlotte, unlike the official state map, but they also show the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass as complete. They still have I-74 on the Rockingham Bypass though and I-440 has made a comeback in the city inset along the I-40 stretch of the Raleigh Beltline (which they do show as under construction). They also have the Fayetteville Loop still marked as I-295.
The store had both the standard atlas (with or without the plastic cover) along with the ring bound Deluxe and large text versions. The latter two were not as updated as the standard edition, for example, there was no reference to I-41 in the Wisconsin maps in either of them.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 27, 2015, 10:14:09 PM
The store had both the standard atlas (with or without the plastic cover) along with the ring bound Deluxe and large text versions. The latter two were not as updated as the standard edition, for example, there was no reference to I-41 in the Wisconsin maps in either of them.
If you have a previous edition with a cover, you can probably move the cover to the new edition. I've usually been able to do that (don't know about 2016, I'm waiting for the Wal-Mart edition), though sometimes I had to clip the corners of the new edition's cover or do other minor trims.
They still haven't made it to my local Target, but there are a whole bunch of 2014 editions there. I'm not ready to pay BN prices, especially since I buy a couple for the cars and bathroom. The clerks think I'm nuts ("They still make those???", "All for you?")
As a kid, every year for Christmas I would ask my grandmother for one thing: the latest Rand McNally atlas. Nothing more, nothing less. It became our standing thing. There came a point where she insisted that I surely must have outgrown it and, despite many protestations, she decided I needed something more grand. To this day, I still tell her it's what I want and she still tells me, surely, I want something more. I'm 31; she's 92. It seems that ship has sailed.
I finally bought my 2016 Rand McNally today!
I obtained the 2016 Road Atlas from Barnes Nobles in about a week ago. Saw several minor changes in San Diego inset map such as random corrections in San Diego metro area. Much like add the two towns labels such as Granite Hills and Rancho San Diego. Monterey Bay inset map tilted also. Las Vegas inset map move north showing Northern CC-215 Beltway section! The I-11 dashed line now on the Nevada state map without I-11 shield on it. Seem like Rand McNally still doing good job with correcting some stuffs into the maps! :clap:
I noticed that I-265 in Louisville is shown as a dashed green line over the Ohio River and in Ohio Portsmouth appears to be getting a new bypass (maybe I-73/74???). I-69 is shown as complete to Bloomington, which by 2016 it will be. Texas has several new cities in inset maps (Abilene, College Station, Killen, Tyler). Beumont and Austin are in larger inset maps. I am really impressed with the new atlas. Every atlas is going to have errors, but Rand McNally seems to always have the least amount. I have never got lost with it and I've drove practically everywhere it seems.
Still waiting for it to show up at Target. Looks like I'm gonna miss some of the fun in 'spot the changes'. Just about ready to pull the trigger on Amazon...
When I was a kid, I collected Rand McNallys. This seems like it might be a good time to start again.
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 11:21:02 AMin Ohio Portsmouth appears to be getting a new bypass (maybe I-73/74???).
Nope. This is the Appalachian Development Corridor B bypass of Portsmouth. The idea is for through US 23 traffic to take the bridge at the Greenup Lock & Dam across the river to US 52, then use the new bypass to access US 23 north of Portsmouth.
Quote from: SimMoonXP on May 02, 2015, 09:07:46 PM
I obtained the 2016 Road Atlas from Barnes Nobles in about a week ago. Saw several minor changes in San Diego inset map such as random corrections in San Diego metro area. Much like add the two towns labels such as Granite Hills and Rancho San Diego. Monterey Bay inset map tilted also. Las Vegas inset map move north showing Northern CC-215 Beltway section! The I-11 dashed line now on the Nevada state map without I-11 shield on it. Seem like Rand McNally still doing good job with correcting some stuffs into the maps! :clap:
To what extent was the I-11 dashed line shown? Was it just from Hoover Dam around Boulder City, or did it go further? Any alignment further north than the Railroad Pass between Henderson and Boulder City hasn't been officially decided yet.
EDIT: Slightly reworded for clarity.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 03, 2015, 03:02:02 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 11:21:02 AMin Ohio Portsmouth appears to be getting a new bypass (maybe I-73/74???).
Nope. This is the Appalachian Development Corridor B bypass of Portsmouth. The idea is for through US 23 traffic to take the bridge at the Greenup Lock & Dam across the river to US 52, then use the new bypass to access US 23 north of Portsmouth.
The bypass will be signed OH 823, and is expected to open in 2019. I'm surprised RMcN included it, with the opening date so far off.
Got my 2016s at Target today. Welcome aboard I-41.
Quote from: vtk on May 05, 2015, 12:52:21 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 03, 2015, 03:02:02 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 11:21:02 AMin Ohio Portsmouth appears to be getting a new bypass (maybe I-73/74???).
Nope. This is the Appalachian Development Corridor B bypass of Portsmouth. The idea is for through US 23 traffic to take the bridge at the Greenup Lock & Dam across the river to US 52, then use the new bypass to access US 23 north of Portsmouth.
The bypass will be signed OH 823, and is expected to open in 2019. I'm surprised RMcN included it, with the opening date so far off.
Please. They've shown the ring road around Nashua, NH for how long? And is that still in the atlas?
Quote from: cl94 on May 05, 2015, 11:23:47 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 05, 2015, 12:52:21 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 03, 2015, 03:02:02 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 11:21:02 AMin Ohio Portsmouth appears to be getting a new bypass (maybe I-73/74???).
Nope. This is the Appalachian Development Corridor B bypass of Portsmouth. The idea is for through US 23 traffic to take the bridge at the Greenup Lock & Dam across the river to US 52, then use the new bypass to access US 23 north of Portsmouth.
The bypass will be signed OH 823, and is expected to open in 2019. I'm surprised RMcN included it, with the opening date so far off.
Please. They've shown the ring road around Nashua, NH for how long? And is that still in the atlas?
It's been gone for a few years.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 03, 2015, 01:42:37 PM
When I was a kid, I collected Rand McNallys. This seems like it might be a good time to start again.
I still collect them myself.
Quote from: Henry on May 06, 2015, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on May 03, 2015, 01:42:37 PM
When I was a kid, I collected Rand McNallys. This seems like it might be a good time to start again.
I still collect them myself.
As do I. It's really cool to compare them by year. My first was from 85 or 86, I believe.
Fixed in today's App Store update. (But, yikes, a 600MB download!)
Quote from: Kniwt on April 22, 2015, 03:13:14 AM
Is the iPad version missing a significant piece of California? I ask because, from everything I can see in my 2016, much of the eastern Sierra from Bishop northward along US 395 isn't there. It should be on the Northern California page, but it's cropped north-south through the state line at Lake Tahoe, missing everything to the east of there. (A tiny piece of it is visible on the Nevada page.)
I looked on all six of the California pages and didn't find it. Am I missing something?
I glanced at it tonight and noticed a couple of things:
AR 549 in Fort Smith is labelled "Future I-49" in text but shows no shields
US 64-412 is labelled as a toll road west of OK 151
I got my copy tonight. Another thing I noticed is that the Creek Turnpike and Muskogee Turnpike are not labeled OK 364 and OK 351.
Is there a larger Atlanta inset?
I didn't buy one, but I've looked at one and they've finally removed the dashed line for the cancelled(?) US-31 freeway in Berrien County
That is too bad if they've cancelled extending the US-31 freeway to connect with I-94 in Michigan.
NE 370 does extend east of US75. I drive it to work every weekday. It crosses into Iowa over the Bellevue bridge (toll), becomes IA 370 and ends at I-29.
Are there any changes to I-86, or Future I-86 in New York?
Quote from: rbt48 on May 28, 2015, 09:55:05 PM
That is too bad if they've cancelled extending the US-31 freeway to connect with I-94 in Michigan.
I've never seen anything about "cancellation" of the US-31 freeway near Benton Harbor. As far as I know, it's still in the plan. However, it doesn't seem to be a priority in cash-strapped Michigan and there has been no progress. If anyone has a cite for cancellation, I'd like to see it.
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2015, 12:30:18 AM
Quote from: SimMoonXP on May 02, 2015, 09:07:46 PM
I obtained the 2016 Road Atlas from Barnes Nobles in about a week ago. Saw several minor changes in San Diego inset map such as random corrections in San Diego metro area. Much like add the two towns labels such as Granite Hills and Rancho San Diego. Monterey Bay inset map tilted also. Las Vegas inset map move north showing Northern CC-215 Beltway section! The I-11 dashed line now on the Nevada state map without I-11 shield on it. Seem like Rand McNally still doing good job with correcting some stuffs into the maps! :clap:
To what extent was the I-11 dashed line shown? Was it just from Hoover Dam around Boulder City, or did it go further? Any alignment further north than the Railroad Pass between Henderson and Boulder City hasn't been officially decided yet.
EDIT: Slightly reworded for clarity.
It looks like the I-11 dashed line goes from just west (north) of the US 93/US 95 split to the north (west) end of the Hoover Dam Bypass.
Anyone in the Chicago area got it yet? I still have yet to see a physical copy in my usual places where I find them.
I got a copy of the Wal-Mart version of the standard 2016 RMcN atlas, in Evanston WY earlier today. As with previous years, the Wal-Mart version has a lower price, and a directory of store locations in the U.S. and Canada.
I had previously seen at Wal-Marts only large-type or other specialty 2016 RMcN atlases, with no discount or store directory. I was getting worried that Wal-Mart had discontinued its customized version of the standard atlas.
Walmart has pooped so much that I wouldn't want to get a special edition just because it has a directory of Walmarts.
If you buy the ebook of the Randy McNally Road Atlas, do you get free updates every year?
Quote from: I-39 on June 04, 2015, 07:09:51 PM
If you buy the ebook of the Randy McNally Road Atlas, do you get free updates every year?
So far, yes, in both 2014 and 2015, usually a day or so before the print edition is released. However, I don't see anything where they promise to keep delivering free updates in the future.
US 158 Business is finally shown as NC 12 on the Outer Banks after 27 years of erroneous labeling.
But not to worry...all the VA 4xx routes in Virginia Beach plus VA 167 are still shown...
Mike
This thread is for those of us who have Rand McNally's latest atlas.
Anyone curious about additions, changes, etc.?
-I-22 is complete in Alabama
-I-69 is displayed in TX, KY, southern IN
:)
merged with earlier created thread --sso
I created the topic for this a while back already. :) I posted the link for it below. FYI I-41 is also shown in Wisconsin now. I-49 is also shown on the old I-540 in Arkansas.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15268.75
merged --sso
There's also I-2, I-69C and I-69E in TX! It still feels weird to see suffixed Interstates, especially with a C.
Some of my observations (not a comprehensive list) when comparing 2015 vs 2016 (not including ever-shifting "construction zone" green highlights):
- US 641 is shown extended south in Tennessee.
- The Las Vegas inset is shifted northward to show the complete 215 beltway and remove the area around I-15 Exit 27 (Jct NV 146)
- 84th St in Lincoln, NE now shows as a divided highway rather than a gray line
- I-49 is shown in place of I-540 in Arkansas
- I-269 is shown in both Mississippi and Tennessee
- Toll bridge connecting I-265 in Indiana with KY 841 is shown under construction
- I-164 in Indiana is now shown as I-69
- I-99 shown in New York
- Kansas 17 south of Hutchinson now shown as Kansas 14
- South of Indianapolis, I-69 in Indiana completed as far north as Bloomington
- Coeur d'Alene inset expanded to include Post Falls in Idaho
- Florida 429 shown under construction north of US 441 and Florida 414
- CA 4 shown as under construction as freeway near Port of Stockton west of I-5
- Utah 201 now shown as freeway for a few miles west of I-215
- New/rearranged Texas city maps on pages 98-101
I'm sure there's more changes, but that's a start.
It's going to be strange to see a Tyler inset map on anything besides the official TX state fold-out maps, which have had Tyler (and other smaller TX metros) included for many years now.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 30, 2015, 04:11:54 PM
Walmart has pooped so much that I wouldn't want to get a special edition just because it has a directory of Walmarts.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Nexus 5X