It comes out on April 15th. I need a new atlas so I'm looking forward to its release date. It will be interesting to see what happens on the Indiana page, due to all the decommissionings, I-69, and SR 641. I heard that I-555 is now a reality in Arkansas so hopefully it is in the new atlas too. Also being a Mexico road geek it will also be interesting to see if any of the "newer" toll roads will finally be added to the Mexico page. I'm sure the atlas is finalized by now, so we'll have to wait and see what made the cut.
It'll be interesting to see if the corrections I submitted to RMcN are in the new atlas. For the element of surprise, I will refrain from mentioning my suggested corrections until I see the atlas with my own eyes. :D
I-555 probably came online too late for it to be included this year.
I am hoping to see the South Mountain Freeway as under construction on their Phoenix Metro map. Will the divided highway sections of Loop 303 show as freeway between Grand Avenue and I-17?
Additionally, I am hoping to see CA 99 as a full freeway (without the yellow overlay on construction zones) south of Merced. Additionally, I would like to see a completed Anthony Henday Drive (AB 216) around Edmonton. And, if I am lucky, I would like to see the Southwest Ring Road under construction on their Calgary inset.
And, I hope to see a completed Willits, CA Bypass on US 101 showing up as a freeway, too. And, while we are at it, CA 11 open to Enrico Fermi Drive in Otay Mesa, CA, with dashed "under construction" markings leading over to CA 125.
And, anything relating to the Thomas Roads Improvement Program on the Bakersfield inset (178 and Morning Drive, 24th Street, Centennial Corridor, Hageman Flyover)...Zowie !!
For me, buying a new Rand Mc Nally atlas each year is as exciting as buying a new car.
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
Seriously. 2016 will just barely be more than one-fourth over...
I'm way overdue for a new copy myself, though. I used to get them every year or every other year at least, but I think my most recent one is 2011 or 2012. My roadgeekdom is slipping, I guess... :sombrero:
Quote from: ModernDayWarrior on March 31, 2016, 12:26:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
Seriously. 2016 will just barely be more than one-fourth over...
I'm way overdue for a new copy myself, though. I used to get them every year or every other year at least, but I think my most recent one is 2011 or 2012. My roadgeekdom is slipping, I guess... :sombrero:
My last one is from 1998 :-D :-D :-D Google Maps has kept me updated with newer roads, but I will be getting a fresh hardcopy
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
Hell, car models don't even come out till later in the year.
Quote from: Brandon on March 31, 2016, 09:35:07 AM
Hell, car models don't even come out till later in the year.
The 2017 Chevy Volt begs to differ, having been on dealer lots for the last month or so.
Quote from: lordsutch on March 31, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 31, 2016, 09:35:07 AM
Hell, car models don't even come out till later in the year.
The 2017 Chevy Volt begs to differ, having been on dealer lots for the last month or so.
Now, how many have left dealer lots so far?
:hmmm:
That said, I'd love to see much more detailed coverage of Mexico.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on March 31, 2016, 10:40:19 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on March 31, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 31, 2016, 09:35:07 AM
Hell, car models don't even come out till later in the year.
The 2017 Chevy Volt begs to differ, having been on dealer lots for the last month or so.
Now, how many have left dealer lots so far?
:hmmm:
That said, I'd love to see much more detailed coverage of Mexico.
Mike
That would be nice, as well as a proper map of Puerto Rico, between Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, as well as maps of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. I'd also like better coverage of Canada.
Quote from: lordsutch on March 31, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 31, 2016, 09:35:07 AM
Hell, car models don't even come out till later in the year.
The 2017 Chevy Volt begs to differ, having been on dealer lots for the last month or so.
As has the Hyundai Elantra. I was at the dealership a couple weeks ago with my 2013 Elantra, just getting my oil changed and watching the TV when some sales guy comes up to me and asked if I wanted to test drive the 2017 Elantra. I thought to myself "isn't it a little early for that?"
Quote from: Brandon on March 31, 2016, 09:59:58 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on March 31, 2016, 10:40:19 AM
That said, I'd love to see much more detailed coverage of Mexico.
That would be nice, as well as a proper map of Puerto Rico, between Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, as well as maps of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. I'd also like better coverage of Canada.
I'd probably add 4 more pages to Mexico, something like this.
1) NW Mexico= BCN, BCS, and Sonora.
2) Northern Mexico= Chih, Sinaloa, Durango, Coah, Zac, SLP, Tamps, and NL.
3) Central Mexico= Nayarit, Agua, Jalis, Guan, Quer, Hid, Tlax, Veracruz, Oax, Pueb, Guerro, Mexico, DF, Mor, Mich, Colima.
4) Yucatan Peninsula= Tabasco, Chiapas, Campeche, Yucatan, Quintana Roo.
For Canada I'd add 1 page showing a map of northern BC, NWT, and Yukon.
I actually wouldn't care if Puerto Rico got yanked from the atlas. It's not a state and you can't drive there from the North American continent.
It makes sense to me that the US and Canada get the state/province maps and Mexico doesn't. Maybe it's just because I live in the north, but I would guess that many more US residents travel by car in Canada than in Mexico. I know if I was ever going to drive in Mexico, I'd want a much better source than that small map RMcN has included all these years, and would just buy something else that provides the needed level of detail. I for one wouldn't be interested in having the extra pages (and possible corresponding extra cost) to have a level of detail for all of Mexico sufficient to use for real navigation when I'm unlikely to be driving in Mexico. That said, maybe a good compromise might be to add a small number of pages with city detail for major cities or even entire states in northern Mexico that attract the most American tourists.
Quote from: ModernDayWarrior on March 31, 2016, 12:26:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
Seriously. 2016 will just barely be more than one-fourth over...
I'm way overdue for a new copy myself, though. I used to get them every year or every other year at least, but I think my most recent one is 2011 or 2012. My roadgeekdom is slipping, I guess... :sombrero:
I used to do the same thing. I'd get a new Rand McNally road atlas as soon as it was available. However, I've slipped a little bit, too. My most recent copy is a 2014. Something about Google Maps and Google Street view. However, that being said, there's still no substitute for a good old school road atlas.
Quote from: Jim on April 01, 2016, 11:43:53 AM
It makes sense to me that the US and Canada get the state/province maps and Mexico doesn't. Maybe it's just because I live in the north, but I would guess that many more US residents travel by car in Canada than in Mexico. I know if I was ever going to drive in Mexico, I'd want a much better source than that small map RMcN has included all these years, and would just buy something else that provides the needed level of detail. I for one wouldn't be interested in having the extra pages (and possible corresponding extra cost) to have a level of detail for all of Mexico sufficient to use for real navigation when I'm unlikely to be driving in Mexico. That said, maybe a good compromise might be to add a small number of pages with city detail for major cities or even entire states in northern Mexico that attract the most American tourists.
This comment is probably pretty true. 9 out of 10 Americans probably wouldn't even consider driving south of the border. I know I get crazy looks all the time whenever I tell people that I've drove in Mexico.
Mexico also has it's own road atlas called the Guia Roji which has detailed maps of every Mexican estado and inset maps of decent sized Mexican cities. I wish I would have stopped and bought one at a PEMEX whenever I was in Ojinaga. I totally forgot all about it when I was down there in late February.
It would be nice however, if at the very least RandMcnally would put Mexico on 2 pages (page 128 and 129) instead of just 1 page (128). I think that would be the best compromise. It would also be really nice if they went back to the 2014 Mexico map that was a lot easier to read.
Quote from: US 41 on April 01, 2016, 11:02:17 AM
I actually wouldn't care if Puerto Rico got yanked from the atlas. It's not a state and you can't drive there from the North American continent.
However, it is a US territory that is thisclose to being a state, and if you can't drive there is an issue, then you might as well dump Hawai'i as well.
Quote from: Brandon on April 01, 2016, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: US 41 on April 01, 2016, 11:02:17 AM
I actually wouldn't care if Puerto Rico got yanked from the atlas. It's not a state and you can't drive there from the North American continent.
However, it is a US territory that is thisclose to being a state, and if you can't drive there is an issue, then you might as well dump Hawai'i as well.
I definitely see your point. But if we're going to include Puerto Rico, then it should also have maps of Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Maybe they could just add a page called "US territories" that contains inset maps of the 5 small US territories. :hmmm:
Quote from: US 41 on April 01, 2016, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 01, 2016, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: US 41 on April 01, 2016, 11:02:17 AM
I actually wouldn't care if Puerto Rico got yanked from the atlas. It's not a state and you can't drive there from the North American continent.
However, it is a US territory that is thisclose to being a state, and if you can't drive there is an issue, then you might as well dump Hawai'i as well.
I definitely see your point. But if we're going to include Puerto Rico, then it should also have maps of Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Maybe they could just add a page called "US territories" that contains inset maps of the 5 small US territories. :hmmm:
Exactly my point above (see Reply #10).
But Puerto Rico has more roads and people than all those other islands combined; there are freeways and large cities that deserve insets. It's like comparing apples to crab apples.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 02, 2016, 12:37:33 PM
But Puerto Rico has more roads and people than all those other islands combined; there are freeways and large cities that deserve insets. It's like comparing apples to crab apples.
I'm also figuring that it's far more likely for someone in the main target audience of the atlas, the residents of the 50 US states and of Canada, to travel to PR than to those other places. Even in the USVI, which surely attract a lot of American tourists compared to the other territory islands, are people likely to rent cars and drive? I don't mean people like those of us in this group, because I know I'd try to get a chance to drive anywhere I go, I mean your typical tourist. I think they might be more likely to do so in PR.
Curious if in Texas we'll see I-169, and see I-69 all the way through Houston. I believe my 2015 still shows I-69 outside the I-610 loop.
Quote from: DandyDan on April 01, 2016, 04:58:44 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on March 31, 2016, 09:41:24 AM
Quote from: Brandon on March 31, 2016, 09:35:07 AM
Hell, car models don't even come out till later in the year.
The 2017 Chevy Volt begs to differ, having been on dealer lots for the last month or so.
As has the Hyundai Elantra. I was at the dealership a couple weeks ago with my 2013 Elantra, just getting my oil changed and watching the TV when some sales guy comes up to me and asked if I wanted to test drive the 2017 Elantra. I thought to myself "isn't it a little early for that?"
Speaking of Chevy, IIRC, the 1988 Beretta/Corsica came out in late 1986/early 1987, and we were like "isn't it a little too early for that?"
As for México, I'd gladly settle for an accurate map of just the northern one-third of it (say, stop the map somewhere around Mazatlán or even farther north, as Americans are more likely to be driving north of there than south of there). Kind of like how they cut off the Canadian provinces. As it is, the Mexican page is worthless not just because it is so small, but also because what is shown isn't even accurate in many instances. I'd also include a large inset for Monterrey, medium ones for Torreón and Chihuahua, and a couple of smaller ones.
As for Puerto Rico, I think it should be a one-page map. It's similar to Connecticut in both land area and population. San Juan and Ponce deserve insets.
The Routemaster Canada/USA atlas (which is similar to the RandMcNally atlas, but made by a Canadian map company) no longer includes Mexico in their atlas.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on April 08, 2016, 01:20:03 PM
The Routemaster Canada/USA atlas (which is similar to the RandMcNally atlas, but made by a Canadian map company) no longer includes Mexico in their atlas.
I don't think some of the Rand McNally speciality (ex: large scale, pocket edition) atlases include Mexico either. I'd be extremely disappointed however if Mexico was removed from the "regular" road atlas.
At the bare minimum here are the changes I'd like to see made on the Mexico page.
1) Go back to the older Mexico map (2014 and older) color scheme. The maps they have used the past 2 years are kind of hard to read because of all the color changes (from tan to green). An all yellow or all white background would be perfect.
2) MX 57 needs to be shown in orange from San Luis Potosi to Saltillo instead of red. MX 57 is a high quality 4 lane highway with at grades between those two cities.
3) The new autopista Durango - Mazatlan (40D) needs to be shown in green labeled as "2 Lane".
4) Show the autopista Mazatlan - Tepic. It is also 2 lane.
5) MX 54 is 4 lane for a long ways northeast of Cd. Zacatecas, so it should also be shown in orange.
6) In the Mexico City Inset map I think the Cto Exterior Mexiquense toll road needs to be shown. It's basically the northeastern bypass of Mexico City. Also the Anillo Periferico should probably be in blue rather than orange.
7) Last but not least having Mexico on 128 and 129 would be a lot nicer than having it on just 128. The 1 inch equals 145 miles could be reduced to 1 inch equaling closer to 75 miles. This would make more room so everything isn't so crammed in.
Corrections to México in RMcN would be major and numerous. That's why I'd settle for something actually accurate, even if the scope were reduced to the northern part of the country. AFAIK, the state of Chihuahua is still shown in the wrong time zone, despite having changed in 1998. Yes, eighteen years ago. Highway lines do not match real life, not just in road type but also in routing. Route numbers are incorrect. Nonexistent roads are shown, while existent roads are missing. It's pathetic and useless for travel.
When I see it in a store, I'll check it out, but chances are there aren't enough improvements to warrant a purchase. OTOH, I wouldn't mind having a blank atlas with no highlighter marks...
Did they update the interchanges on I-95 in North Carolina? Because the 2016 Large Size one still has I-74 listed as Exit 14, when it's actually Exit 13.
Actually, they show I-74 with no exit number and the former US 74's Exit 14 together.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 08, 2016, 05:16:37 PM
Did they update the interchanges on I-95 in North Carolina? Because the 2016 Large Size one still has I-74 listed as Exit 14, when it's actually Exit 13.
Actually, they show I-74 with no exit number and the former US 74's Exit 14 together.
I don't think it's been released yet in any version yet. The book doesn't come out until another week (the 15th).
Four more days... :sombrero:
Three more days to go!
Pre-ordered mine last night, as I am sick of going to every Walmart in New England (or so it seemed) looking for the cheap one and the only thing I ever got out of it was getting really pissed off and trying to find where each particular Walmart keeps theirs. Some are in a/v, some by the register, some in a separate book area. Last year I discovered amazon.com for the atlas and that is my new route to obtain it.
I'm going to wait a week or 2 after it comes out and then I will make the drive over to the Barnes and Noble in Plainfield to go get mine. It worked last year, so I guess I'll try it again this year. I guess I could try the one in Bloomington too since I usually drive there at least twice a month.
I wasn't sure WalMart was even selling the discount versions anymore. Last year, I checked a few locations and never found them. And WalMart isn't the kind of place you can easily find someone willing and able to help find something specific like that.
Walmart can poo its pants anyhow.
Quote from: bandit957 on April 13, 2016, 12:38:08 PM
Walmart can poo its pants anyhow.
I'm sure there are people that go in there with poo in their pants as well.
Quote from: Jim on April 13, 2016, 07:25:18 AM
I wasn't sure WalMart was even selling the discount versions anymore. Last year, I checked a few locations and never found them. And WalMart isn't the kind of place you can easily find someone willing and able to help find something specific like that.
They usually arrive a few weeks after the full-priced versions come out in other stores. Usually, they're in the books and magazines section (often right next to TVs and other entertainment items, but sometimes in a free-standing section in the front of the store within a gap in the cash registers). In larger stores with auto service facilities for oil changes, etc., you sometimes can find them there.
Since there are no Wal-Marts convenient to me, I just wait until my first summer road trip, by which time Wal-Marts are stocking their discount versions of the RMcN. Since nothing much changes from one year to the next, the wait is no big deal for me, and until then I just get by with the old version.
Quote from: oscar on April 13, 2016, 01:47:15 PM
Since nothing much changes from one year to the next, the wait is no big deal for me, and until then I just get by with the old version.
Heh. I used to get excited about getting a new one to see how the Interstates were coming along when I was a kid, but you're right: Now, finding what changes is like finding needles in a haystack.
I wonder if they'll push an update to the iOS book version and/or app like they did last year?
One more day...the suspense is killing me!
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2016, 04:50:56 PM
Corrections to México in RMcN would be major and numerous. That's why I'd settle for something actually accurate, even if the scope were reduced to the northern part of the country. AFAIK, the state of Chihuahua is still shown in the wrong time zone, despite having changed in 1998. Yes, eighteen years ago. Highway lines do not match real life, not just in road type but also in routing. Route numbers are incorrect. Nonexistent roads are shown, while existent roads are missing. It's pathetic and useless for travel.
When I see it in a store, I'll check it out, but chances are there aren't enough improvements to warrant a purchase. OTOH, I wouldn't mind having a blank atlas with no highlighter marks...
Ah, I found this picture I made once to illustrate how ridiculous RMcN is when it comes to México. This is not the most recent edition, but I highly doubt much has changed since I last bought a copy.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Frmn_zps04aeed2c.jpg&hash=1cac01975a3d414c725d52b9c89fbc63ba8870a6)
Heck, the North America road atlas I have got everything right in that part of Mexico (except it doesn't put a shield on Nuevo León 3). Of course is not a Rand McNally atlas, but a Michelin one.
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2016, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2016, 04:50:56 PM
Corrections to México in RMcN would be major and numerous. That's why I'd settle for something actually accurate, even if the scope were reduced to the northern part of the country. AFAIK, the state of Chihuahua is still shown in the wrong time zone, despite having changed in 1998. Yes, eighteen years ago. Highway lines do not match real life, not just in road type but also in routing. Route numbers are incorrect. Nonexistent roads are shown, while existent roads are missing. It's pathetic and useless for travel.
When I see it in a store, I'll check it out, but chances are there aren't enough improvements to warrant a purchase. OTOH, I wouldn't mind having a blank atlas with no highlighter marks...
Ah, I found this picture I made once to illustrate how ridiculous RMcN is when it comes to México. This is not the most recent edition, but I highly doubt much has changed since I last bought a copy.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Frmn_zps04aeed2c.jpg&hash=1cac01975a3d414c725d52b9c89fbc63ba8870a6)
They actually fixed all of these errors in either last years or 2 years ago atlas.
I do remember seeing an atlas or an Alabama state map (most likely the later) which had Carl T. Jones Drive drawn on the insert of Huntsville. However, it was drawn as a road with a sharp right, and not the winding road that it actually is.
What do you all do with your old atlas(es) when you get a new one? Keep them, trash them, or recycle them?
Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 14, 2016, 09:30:42 PM
What do you all do with your old atlas(es) when you get a new one? Keep them, trash them, or recycle them?
I keep all of mine in a box in my closet so I can go back and look at them years later.
as of 2015's atlas details of each road were so fine tuned you could tell where the access is limited on a road by looking at the map's color. Google Maps still beats it out.
Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 10:15:12 PM
Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 14, 2016, 09:30:42 PM
What do you all do with your old atlas(es) when you get a new one? Keep them, trash them, or recycle them?
I keep all of mine in a box in my closet so I can go back and look at them years later.
DUH! I keep them just to have something to draw new roads on, though the older ones have been worn out by now.
To kphoger: Here's what the bottom of the Texas (east) page looks like now (2016 atlas) in Mexico. It is much more accurate. The older versions like what you showed were very bad. I don't even know how they came up with what they did back then.
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12987127_252119458464758_2575863244426516415_n.jpg?oh=bf0ca529db0b327e2c18af8aa218811a&oe=5782E909)
^^ Wow, decently accurate. The only thing I notice offhand is small enough it's not really worth mentioning. I guess I'll have to pick one up.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 13, 2016, 03:12:13 PM
I wonder if they'll push an update to the iOS book version and/or app like they did last year?
Apparently so–this just showed up in my app updates:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1528/26389646031_d48272a291_b.jpg)
Indiana-Kentucky: I-265 shown as complete (should be open this year)
Indiana:
-Part of Lloyd expressway in Evansville shown as freeway (correctly)
-SR 641 in Terre Haute shown as complete (scheduled completion in 2016)
-Muncie bypass shown as freeway on east side (almost right; there is one stoplight at McGalliard Rd.)
-I-65 Worthville Rd. exit shown
-sections of Elkhart CR 17 shown as freeway in similar way to SR 25
-I-69 section 5 not shown as freeway (correct due to contractor issues), but i thought last year that section showed the yellow highlight indicating construction
-US 31/SR 28 interchange not shown (scheduled completion in 2016)
-SR 750 North Vernon bypass not marked as such (same as 2016 edition)
-SR 267 no longer marked and same as 2016 edition: not technically correct because some parts remain, but what else can you do?
Michigan: M-231 shown
All in all, not too bad.
First thing I checked, and it was wrong:
In southern Utah: SR 7 is shown only to Exit 10. Exit 10 to Exit 15 opened in December 2015, and the remainder to MP 19 opened in 2013, but both aren't shown at all, not even under construction.
Second thing I checked, also wrong:
In the NWT, the Deh Cho Bridge still isn't shown, only the discontinued ferry.
Did they ever update the downtown Cincinnati street-level inset? I don't think it's been updated since about 2000, despite all the changes there.
Any exciting new city insets, or upgrades of existing ones to the "big city" style?
iPhone
Looks like I can just tell that there noticable major changes in 2017 Road Atlas on Page 15 in Southern California (Mojave Desert) such as adding new National Monuments!
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Monuments_of_the_United_States#National_Monuments
http://www.randmcnally.com/images/press-release/The_2017_Rand_McNally_Road_Atlas_is_Here.pdf. For new information about 2017 Road Atlas. It does add new inset map of Laramie, Wyoming!
Quote from: SimMoonXP on April 18, 2016, 02:05:43 PM
http://www.randmcnally.com/images/press-release/The_2017_Rand_McNally_Road_Atlas_is_Here.pdf. For new information about 2017 Road Atlas. It does add new inset map of Laramie, Wyoming!
Yay? :D
Looks like it missed Castle Mountains NM, just announced recently. :D
Has anyone seen the atlas yet in Barnes and Noble (or elsewhere)?
Quote from: SimMoonXP on April 18, 2016, 02:05:43 PM
http://www.randmcnally.com/images/press-release/The_2017_Rand_McNally_Road_Atlas_is_Here.pdf. For new information about 2017 Road Atlas. It does add new inset map of Laramie, Wyoming!
Y'know, if Laramie gets an inset, Gillette deserves one too (as well as Aberdeen, SD).
Quote from: SD Mapman on April 21, 2016, 08:45:33 PM
Quote from: SimMoonXP on April 18, 2016, 02:05:43 PM
http://www.randmcnally.com/images/press-release/The_2017_Rand_McNally_Road_Atlas_is_Here.pdf. For new information about 2017 Road Atlas. It does add new inset map of Laramie, Wyoming!
Y'know, if Laramie gets an inset, Gillette deserves one too (as well as Aberdeen, SD).
And Grand Junction, CO.
Changes I've noticed on a first look through the new Atlas.
AL
1) Tuscaloosa inset shows part of McFarland Blvd in blue (freeway).
AK
1) More freeways in Fairbanks inset shown in blue.
AZ
1) New SW downtown bypass (I assume Loop 202 extension) shown as under construction.
AR
1) In Fort Smith inset "Future I-49" is now labeled as 549.
CO
1) SR 21 shown in blue in northeastern part of CO Springs.
DE
1) New US 301 toll road shown as under construction in green.
IN
1) Parts of Muncie bypass shown in blue.
2) Lloyd Exp. west of US 41 shown in blue.
3) SR 641 shown as complete in Terre Haute (Hooray!).
4) SR 48 shown in orange (multilane unlimited access) in Bloomington west of SR 37.
5) SR 37 no longer highlighted as under construction between Btown and Martinsville, but is still shown in orange.
Iowa
1) New freeway shown as under construction in Ceder Rapids.
KS
1) Finally got rid of the blue dashed line showing a future KS 4 freeway in the Topeka inset.
KY
1) I-265 toll bridge shown as complete.
2) I-65 Ohio River bridge now shown as a toll bridge in green.
MS
1) I-22 now shown in MS.
2) I-269 was shown as complete in the 2016. It is now shown as under construction. They must've realized they jumped the gun too much on that one.
NV
1) Not a change, but a question. Are they ever going to finish the Carson City bypass south of Fairview Dr?
NC
1) A new Asheboro bypass for US 64 shown as under construction in blue.
ND
1) New Williston bypass shown in orange. US 85 also shown as multilane from Williston to Alexander now.
TX
1) I-69 now shown through downtown Houston.
WY
1) New Laramie inset.
2) New Grand Teton inset.
3) There's a BR 80 in the Cheyenne inset now.
4) the state map shifted 90 degrees and is now smaller than it was.
Mexico
1) New Ciudad Chihuhua eastern bypass shown in green.
2) New Torreon / Gomez Palacio bypass shown in green.
3) New autopista Durango - Mazatlan shown in green.
4) northwestern Saltillo bypass now shown in green rather than orange and labeled 40D.
Quote from: US 41 on April 21, 2016, 07:13:04 PM
Has anyone seen the atlas yet in Barnes and Noble (or elsewhere)?
My local B&N had several editions of the 2017 maps this afternoon. Too bad for them that they only had the 'Best of the Road' wire-bound deluxe edition, and the small and medium size (and a medium large print edition), not the standard size I was looking for.
Noticed a couple things not mentioned: the new I-395 exit numbers are used for the CT map, for NC the East End Connector in Durham is shown under construction along with the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, and the Greensboro Loop and I-73 projects that were shown on last year's (or should I say this year's?) city inset.
In Virginia they finally dropped VA 167 and the decommissioned 4xx routes in Virginia Beach although they left VA 407 intact too far east...
I was at my local Target last week, and they had mostly the 2015 edition on sale. :-(
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 02, 2016, 06:01:41 AM
I was at my local Target last week, and they had mostly the 2015 edition on sale. :-(
2015? Wow they're two years behind!
Quote from: bob7374 on May 01, 2016, 05:59:37 PM
Quote from: US 41 on April 21, 2016, 07:13:04 PM
Has anyone seen the atlas yet in Barnes and Noble (or elsewhere)?
My local B&N had several editions of the 2017 maps this afternoon. Too bad for them that they only had the 'Best of the Road' wire-bound deluxe edition, and the small and medium size (and a medium large print edition), not the standard size I was looking for.
Noticed a couple things not mentioned: the new I-395 exit numbers are used for the CT map, for NC the East End Connector in Durham is shown under construction along with the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, and the Greensboro Loop and I-73 projects that were shown on last year's (or should I say this year's?) city inset.
The Barnes and Noble in Plainfield, IN had it and that's where I bought my copy. They seem to get it first in my general area. I can always count on Plainfield having it by 2 weeks after the release date. I make my annual drive there every year to go pick one up. It cost me $16 exactly (including tax).
Bloomington's didn't have it as of last week, but they might have it now. There is a B&N in Terre Haute, but it's more devoted toward college students going to Indiana State, and I don't think they even carry Rand McNally Atlases there.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 02, 2016, 06:01:41 AM
I was at my local Target last week, and they had mostly the 2015 edition on sale. :-(
No shock, Target is usually a year or two behind in my experience. Though I did get my 16 there last year.
Just got mine in the mail today from Amazon. Most of the changes that I suggested got implemented, mostly in New England and mostly rest area-related. There's a few less 400+ state routes shown in CT (Waterbury inset's been cleaned up) and the pair of "rest areas" on the MassPike are now shown as service areas. Same goes for the ones on I-93 just south of Concord NH. Some closed rest areas in Maine and VT are no longer shown. I-395 in CT has its new mile marker exits shown. And, the suffixes Garden State Parkway interchanges (for incomplete interchanges) are gone. About time, since they got rid of the explanation for what N and S meant about 30 years ago.
Still don't understand why RMcN is against showing service areas on non-tolled roads as such. I suggested the ones on I-95 and Rt 15 in CT, plus the pair on I-95/128 around Boston. But they have held to their ground of marking them as rest areas, and have even added two more service plaza rest areas to the fold... I-95 in Delaware, thanks to a modification of what is actually a toll road. Yet, the two on the Major Deagan (I-87) in NYC are still service areas. Go figure.
Overall, nice job with the 2017 atlas.
I just noticed today that there is toll road under construction (green dashed line) along US 74 southeast of Charlotte, NC.
Same with the Maryland House and Chesapeake House on I-95 thru Maryland. Full service, but shown as normal rest areas. And even then, only in one direction.
Then go to Kentucky - the Beaver Dam Service Plaza on the West Kentucky Parkway is full service with food and fuel - and it's not on the 2017 map either. But it's been there for years.
Yet it shows the Chicago Skyway as having a service area; as far as I know they never sold fuel and the McDonald's closed last year.
And I-35 in Central Texas has a lot of rest areas that are gone. All the rest areas on 35E / 35W are closed. The "picnic areas" near Elm Mott and Bruceville-Eddy are gone as part of the widening project. The full service rest stops in Round Rock and the one between Kyle and San Marcos have been closed for 10 years now. And so has the one outside of Corpus Christi on I-37.
Somebody at Rand McNally needs to visit rest areas - hope nobody plans a pee break based on these maps. You might run into an unwelcome surprise!
Quote from: shadyjay on May 05, 2016, 08:01:23 PM
Still don't understand why RMcN is against showing service areas on non-tolled roads as such. I suggested the ones on I-95 and Rt 15 in CT, plus the pair on I-95/128 around Boston. But they have held to their ground of marking them as rest areas, and have even added two more service plaza rest areas to the fold... I-95 in Delaware, thanks to a modification of what is actually a toll road. Yet, the two on the Major Deagan (I-87) in NYC are still service areas. Go figure.
Overall, nice job with the 2017 atlas.
For those of you who buy the RMcN annually, is there another brand of atlas you'd buy instead if it were published annually and as widely available?
I've always relied on the NatGeo/Mapquest product myself, but it's only been issued a handful of times. (Still, even when it was a few years old it tended to be more current than the most recent RMcN!)
Quote from: empirestate on May 06, 2016, 07:37:14 AM
For those of you who buy the RMcN annually, is there another brand of atlas you'd buy instead if it were published annually and as widely available?
I've always relied on the NatGeo/Mapquest product myself, but it's only been issued a handful of times. (Still, even when it was a few years old it tended to be more current than the most recent RMcN!)
Tbh the RMcN is not that bad. It is usually by far the most accurate based on what I've seen. Obviously online maps will be better because they are updated constantly. I would personally never switch. I've drove all over the continent and the RMcN has never really got me lost and is pretty accurate in most cases.
Quote from: US 41 on May 06, 2016, 03:46:34 PM
Quote from: empirestate on May 06, 2016, 07:37:14 AM
For those of you who buy the RMcN annually, is there another brand of atlas you'd buy instead if it were published annually and as widely available?
I've always relied on the NatGeo/Mapquest product myself, but it's only been issued a handful of times. (Still, even when it was a few years old it tended to be more current than the most recent RMcN!)
Tbh the RMcN is not that bad. It is usually by far the most accurate based on what I've seen. Obviously online maps will be better because they are updated constantly. I would personally never switch. I've drove all over the continent and the RMcN has never really got me lost and is pretty accurate in most cases.
It's not that it's "that bad", just that it's not the best, and yet is by far the best-known and most widely available. Given the standard of current news and accuracy many of us here seem to prefer, I have no doubt that if the NatGeo/MapQuest (and that is a paper atlas, not online) were published as often and sold at as many stores, we'd handily prefer it. Or the MapArt North American atlas, as another example. Is that not so?
Quote from: US 41 on May 02, 2016, 12:38:40 PM
The Barnes and Noble in Plainfield, IN had it and that's where I bought my copy. They seem to get it first in my general area. I can always count on Plainfield having it by 2 weeks after the release date. I make my annual drive there every year to go pick one up. It cost me $16 exactly (including tax).
Bloomington's didn't have it as of last week, but they might have it now. There is a B&N in Terre Haute, but it's more devoted toward college students going to Indiana State, and I don't think they even carry Rand McNally Atlases there.
I am tripping balls right now because I just bought my copy of the atlas at a Barnes & Noble in Plainfield,
Illinois.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 06, 2016, 09:23:11 PM
I am tripping balls right now because I just bought my copy of the atlas at a Barnes & Noble in Plainfield, Illinois.
Please share your ability to access alternate realities so I can see how Chicagoland would be with more of the once proposed freeways completed, as the Barnes and Noble in Plainfield, Illinois closed a year or two ago.
Streetview from when Plainfield, Illinois had a Barnes and Noble (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6515633,-88.2061415,3a,75y,153.43h,91.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV7IzPLspMKm1DAFFeBpZWQ!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)
More recent streetview of the same site (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6515631,-88.2061535,3a,75y,153.43h,91.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s21TnU5Yk5nAhMe-ji0wCRQ!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 06, 2016, 11:05:43 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 06, 2016, 09:23:11 PM
I am tripping balls right now because I just bought my copy of the atlas at a Barnes & Noble in Plainfield, Illinois.
Please share your ability to access alternate realities so I can see how Chicagoland would be with more of the once proposed freeways completed, as the Barnes and Noble in Plainfield, Illinois closed a year or two ago.
Streetview from when Plainfield, Illinois had a Barnes and Noble (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6515633,-88.2061415,3a,75y,153.43h,91.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV7IzPLspMKm1DAFFeBpZWQ!2e0!5s20120801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)
More recent streetview of the same site (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6515631,-88.2061535,3a,75y,153.43h,91.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s21TnU5Yk5nAhMe-ji0wCRQ!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)
Technically it's in Joliet, but it's close enough to the Plainfield border. Honestly who cares
Non-roads update: The highest point in Alaska/North America is now properly named as Denali. There is zero mentions of Mt. McKinley
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssoworld.org%2Fpics%2Fdenali1.png&hash=2d5eb6f929258cfcf49dbcc1e3f85a5084877e0b)
main map for AK (Src Atlas Maps app from RMcN)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssoworld.org%2Fpics%2Fdenali2.png&hash=714e9f5f89aef91cfde07677980c52cc18e011c0)
Denali NP Inset for AK.(Src Atlas Maps app from RMcN)
The full USA map and the full Canada Map (which has enough room to show Denali's location) also show Denali.
I couldn't find 2017 at a local Walmart or Target so I broke down and got two on Amazon last week. Of course two days later I run across a whole bunch at another Walmart with their discount price. As someone mentioned previously, Target is happy to keep unloading their 2 year old atlases.
The atlas has been placed in the bathroom magazine basket, and the "spot the changes" game has begun.
Does the atlas properly show which sections of Alaska highways are paved and which sections are not paved?
I just noticed that I-95 in Delaware is now shown in blue except between the two exits near the MD state line where you actually have to pay a toll. I'm glad they changed that.
Quote from: US 41 on May 05, 2016, 10:20:03 PM
I just noticed today that there is toll road under construction (green dashed line) along US 74 southeast of Charlotte, NC.
That's the Monroe Bypass.
Was looking at the North Carolina page...Anyone notice anything wrong here?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7260/26369736283_8b76f622e0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GbcMTz)
Incompleted route number.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 12, 2016, 07:51:44 PM
Was looking at the North Carolina page...Anyone notice anything wrong here?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7260/26369736283_8b76f622e0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GbcMTz)
Bethel is labeled in the wrong spot. It should be just south of the US-13/US-64 junction north of Greenville.
EDIT: Never mind. Google Maps shows it as an area, not a town. I was thinking of the town. :pan:
The incompleted route number could've been intended to put a 37 in the blank as it is being extended south to US 64.
Also, there has never been a US 64 ALT there and NC 94 runs separate from US 64 on its way to Columbia.
At least they show a road but the way the map is labeled it implies NC 45 goes to Plymouth when it bypasses it to the southeast.
NC 45 overlay with US 264 and its separate route into Swanquarter not shown (NC 94 from the other direction is however).
US 264 Business through Belhaven not labeled
Indeed there is a signed Bethel at that location: https://goo.gl/maps/SRcYkXQXXi72
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 12, 2016, 08:38:40 PM
The incompleted route number could've been intended to put a 37 in the blank as it is being extended south to US 64.
Also, there has never been a US 64 ALT there and NC 94 runs separate from US 64 on its way to Columbia.
At least they show a road but the way the map is labeled it implies NC 45 goes to Plymouth when it bypasses it to the southeast.
NC 45 overlay with US 264 and its separate route into Swanquarter not shown (NC 94 from the other direction is however).
US 264 Business through Belhaven not labeled
Indeed there is a signed Bethel at that location: https://goo.gl/maps/SRcYkXQXXi72
If Bethel is an unincorporated place, then Rand McNally was consistent with their labeling scheme, using their open-shaded circle.
The gaping hole in the bubble with the "32" should also have a "94." They forgot to put the "94" in at the bottom. wahp wahp lol :-D
McNally be trippin'.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 12, 2016, 09:15:41 PM
If Bethel is an unincorporated place, then Rand McNally was consistent with their labeling scheme, using their open-shaded circle.
Wait, RMcN distinguishes between incorporated and unincorporated places?
"In one-quarter mile, turn left on Route North Carolina Non-Breaking Space"
Quote from: Henry on April 15, 2016, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 10:15:12 PM
Quote from: broadhurst04 on April 14, 2016, 09:30:42 PM
What do you all do with your old atlas(es) when you get a new one? Keep them, trash them, or recycle them?
I keep all of mine in a box in my closet so I can go back and look at them years later.
DUH! I keep them just to have something to draw new roads on, though the older ones have been worn out by now.
I've done a few of those myself, but I wish I hadn't. Mine are in storage too, except for my Hagstrom's Suffolk County Atlas from the 1990's which I'm still struggling to keep together.
Quote from: empirestate on May 13, 2016, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 12, 2016, 09:15:41 PM
If Bethel is an unincorporated place, then Rand McNally was consistent with their labeling scheme, using their open-shaded circle.
Wait, RMcN distinguishes between incorporated and unincorporated places?
Yes...this is a relatively recent thing with the RcMns
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 13, 2016, 11:06:15 AM
Quote from: empirestate on May 13, 2016, 12:23:35 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 12, 2016, 09:15:41 PM
If Bethel is an unincorporated place, then Rand McNally was consistent with their labeling scheme, using their open-shaded circle.
Wait, RMcN distinguishes between incorporated and unincorporated places?
Yes...this is a relatively recent thing with the RcMns
Interesting; I'll have to scope that out some day! Do they use the Census Bureau's definition, or do they also show New York/New England towns as incorporated as well?
Btw...choosing Acadia NP for the cover photo? 10/10 :clap: :clap: :clap: :cheers: :thumbsup:
Was there last fall and holy crap is that place beautiful
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 14, 2016, 06:16:14 PM
Btw...choosing Acadia NP for the cover photo? 10/10 :clap: :clap: :clap: :cheers: :thumbsup:
Was there last fall and holy crap is that place beautiful
We may be going there this summer. Really looking forward to it. We did Portland / Southern Maine last time, and thought we'd get up there, but it was too long a drive to squeeze it in (and my car was looking forward to climbing Mt. Washington on the return trip, and I didn't want to disappoint..)
So I finally was able to get my 2017 RMCN. When I have time Kama I will go through and see if I notice any other changes that have not been mentioned.
I didn't buy it, but I've had the opportunity to look through one, and I noticed that the blue dashed line for the US-31 freeway in Benton Harbor has been removed. Also, it looks like M-231 was put in as an afterthought (in gray when it should have been at least narrow red). Also noticed that exit numbers still aren't included for US-10 or US-127 (or US-131 north of Cadillac). I think it also doesn't have the interchange at US-127 and M-57 marked as one.
Quote from: ftballfan on May 20, 2016, 08:55:44 PM
I didn't buy it, but I've had the opportunity to look through one, and I noticed that the blue dashed line for the US-31 freeway in Benton Harbor has been removed. Also, it looks like M-231 was put in as an afterthought (in gray when it should have been at least narrow red). Also noticed that exit numbers still aren't included for US-10 or US-127 (or US-131 north of Cadillac). I think it also doesn't have the interchange at US-127 and M-57 marked as one.
I'm still waiting for the day when all state routes are given the narrow red line. I don't really care for the arbitrary judgment they make on whether a state route is major or minor. Just show them all equally, unless they're a lowly gravel or chip-seal road.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 20, 2016, 09:15:49 PM
I'm still waiting for the day when all state routes are given the narrow red line. I don't really care for the arbitrary judgment they make on whether a state route is major or minor. Just show them all equally, unless they're a lowly gravel or chip-seal road.
I have occasionally pondered whether there's a good way, using symbology alone, to indicate both the classification of a road (state, county, municipal, etc.) and its physical characteristics (width, surfacing). Has any map company successfully done this?
As of yesterday, the Target closest to me still had (only) a stack of 2015 atlases. I'm thinking this is not because the 2017s have sold out....
Pretty minor, but the 2017 atlas still shows MN-228 existing, though it was decommissioned back in 2012.
Forgot to mention, I ended up getting Large Scale spiral-bound edition for just a few dollars more (that should be a movie title). I'm quite happy with the purchase. I must say, though, I continue to be dissatisfied with RMcN's distinction between "other road" and "unpaved road". They very frequently get it wrong, even so far as drawing jeep trails as the former.
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
It's all about marketing and making people think the content is fresh and just-now current. It's the same reason that a lot of magazines have cover dates as long as two months later than actual publication.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 30, 2016, 12:59:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
It's all about marketing and making people think the content is fresh and just-now current. It's the same reason that a lot of magazines have cover dates as long as two months later than actual publication.
I do think that Rand McNally needs to start releasing atlases in October again. The 2017 (or any other year) shouldn't come until at least October. Anything before that is definitely premature. By the time late September and October rolls around, construction season is almost over and it's pretty clear what will / won't be open by the next year.
I just noticed that the new southern Lawrence, Kansas Bypass (K-10) that is supposed to open in the Fall of this year is not shown in the new atlas at all. Hopefully it will be shown in the 2018 edition.
Just now reading through this thread. I wanted to go back and answer something a couple pages ago...
Quote from: US 41 on April 29, 2016, 05:13:31 PM
Changes I've noticed on a first look through the new Atlas.
NV
1) Not a change, but a question. Are they ever going to finish the Carson City bypass south of Fairview Dr?
Not much new has happened with Nevada roads since last year. Newest thing I can think of is the addition of new route SR 439 on USA Parkway (an existing roadway east of Reno/Sparks in Storey County), which happened sometime in 2015.
To the question: The last leg of the Carson City Bypass, connecting from Fairview Drive to the southern US 50/395 junction, began construction in Spring 2015. It is scheduled to be completed in Spring 2017. The current project (Phase 2B-3) constructs the freeway mainline to the junction at US 50/395, tying the freeway in via the existing signalized intersection. The final part of the overall bypass (Phase 2B-4) will convert the junction to a SPUI interchange, with freeway mainlines defaulting onto US 50 west–this final project is currently unfunded and not expected to happen for another 10 years.
Quote from: US 41 on May 30, 2016, 01:09:33 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 30, 2016, 12:59:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 31, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Coming out with a 2017 edition in April seems premature.
It's all about marketing and making people think the content is fresh and just-now current. It's the same reason that a lot of magazines have cover dates as long as two months later than actual publication.
I do think that Rand McNally needs to start releasing atlases in October again. The 2017 (or any other year) shouldn't come until at least October. Anything before that is definitely premature. By the time late September and October rolls around, construction season is almost over and it's pretty clear what will / won't be open by the next year.
I am ok with as early as August by anything earlier than that I agree is too early.