I spotted the new 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas at a nearby Barnes & Noble. When I checked their website out in March they said it would not be available until April 30. Apparently with Amazon and Rand McNally offering it starting April 15, they decided to make it available sooner.
I have taken a quick perusal and will summarize what I spotted. Since I didn't buy the 2019 edition, I apologize for anything that may have first appeared there, happy to follow-up on anything not listed here:
KY-They still have I-169 listed, but not I-165. I-69 appears along the Purchase Parkway north of Mayfield.
NJ-I-295 is shown around Trenton and an I-95 shield appears on the extension of the Turnpike to PA.
NY-They have included the new exit numbers for I-84, a I-95W shield still is present along the western spur in the NYC inset.
NC-Have put I-285 along US 52 south of Winston Salem. For the Triad area inset they show the under construction parts of the Greensboro Loop and Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. They show I-840, not I-785 along the completed eastern section of the Greensboro Loop. They still also include Bus. 85 and US 311 along their former routes. For the Fayetteville inset they have both I-295 and NC 295 along the Outer Loop. The Triangle area inset has I-440 along with I-40 along the southern section of the Beltline. The state map has I-87 along the Knightdale Bypass. That map also still has I-74 along the Rockingham Bypass, still a few years too soon (they don't show the I-73/I-74 Rockingham Bypass as under construction). US 17 is still shown along the Wilmington Bypass. The Monroe Expressway is shown as completed.
RI-New exit numbers shown for RI 4, 78, and 403. No numbers for RI 146.
PA-An I-95 shield appears along the Turnpike east of I-295 in the Philadelphia inset
TN-I-269 shown along the completed Loop around Memphis up to I-40.
WA-WA 99 is shown as a tunnel in the Seattle inset.
Alas, the iPad version apparently hasn't been updated yet, but every indication is that the annual update will continue to be free for existing users.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 25, 2019, 01:42:56 PM
I spotted the new 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas at a nearby Barnes & Noble. When I checked their website out in March they said it would not be available until April 30. Apparently with Amazon and Rand McNally offering it starting April 15, they decided to make it available sooner.
I have taken a quick perusal and will summarize what I spotted. Since I didn't buy the 2019 edition, I apologize for anything that may have first appeared there, happy to follow-up on anything not listed here:
...
NJ-I-295 is shown around Trenton and an I-95 shield appears on the extension of the Turnpike to PA.
...
PA-An I-95 shield appears along the Turnpike east of I-295 in the Philadelphia inset.
Since the I-95/PA Turnpike connection wasn't yet completed when the 2019 edition came out; not everything was completely edited/updated in that version... particularly revised interchange numbers for the I-95/PA Turnpike portion as well as PA 413 (old Exit 40/current Exit 39) interchange along the Delaware Expressway and changing the color of the I-95/Turnpike stretch between I-276/295 to the AET barrier as a 'free highway'.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 25, 2019, 01:42:56 PM
RI-New exit numbers shown for RI 4, 78, and 403. No numbers for RI 146.
Did last year's edition update the interchange numbers for I-295 or was such done in this year's edition?
I do have the 2019 edition, so comparing it to Bob's and PHLBOS's comments:
QuoteKY-They still have I-169 listed, but not I-165. I-69 appears along the Purchase Parkway north of Mayfield.
2019 edition also shows 169, but not 165. And does not show any shields anywhere along the Purchase Pkwy.
QuoteNJ-I-295 is shown around Trenton and an I-95 shield appears on the extension of the Turnpike to PA.
This also appeared in the 2019 edition.
QuoteNY-They have included the new exit numbers for I-84, a I-95W shield still is present along the western spur in the NYC inset.
2019 edition still shows sequential exit numbers for I-84 and also shows the I-95W shield.
QuoteNC-Have put I-285 along US 52 south of Winston Salem. For the Triad area inset they show the under construction parts of the Greensboro Loop and Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. They show I-840, not I-785 along the completed eastern section of the Greensboro Loop. They still also include Bus. 85 and US 311 along their former routes. For the Fayetteville inset they have both I-295 and NC 295 along the Outer Loop. The Triangle area inset has I-440 along with I-40 along the southern section of the Beltline. The state map has I-87 along the Knightdale Bypass. That map also still has I-74 along the Rockingham Bypass, still a few years too soon (they don't show the I-73/I-74 Rockingham Bypass as under construction). US 17 is still shown along the Wilmington Bypass. The Monroe Expressway is shown as completed.
What the 2019 edition shows:
- Parts of the Greensboro Loop and Winston-Salem Northern Beltline construction (US 220 to Lawndale Dr and US 421 to US 158 respectively).
- I-840 along the east section of the Greensboro Loop
- BUSINESS 85 in Greensboro.
- NC 295 only on the Fayetteville Loop.
- I-440 with I-40 on the south leg of the Raleigh Beltline.
- I-87 on the Knightdale Bypass on both the state map and the Raleigh inset.
- I-74 on the US 74 Rockingham Bypass.
- US 17 on the Wilmington Bypass.
- Monroe Expressway under construction.
What the 2019 edition doesn't show:
- I-285 along US 52.
- BUSINESS 311.
- I-295 in Fayetteville.
- The I-73/74 part of the Rockingham Bypass.
QuoteRI-New exit numbers shown for RI 4, 78, and 403. No numbers for RI 146.
2019 edition only shows two exit numbers (Exits 5 and 6) along RI 4. Nothing on 78, 146, or 403.
QuotePA-An I-95 shield appears along the Turnpike east of I-295 in the Philadelphia inset
This also appears in the 2019 edition.
QuoteTN-I-269 shown along the completed Loop around Memphis up to I-40.
2019 edition shows a completed freeway but no shields between the Mississippi Line and I-40. Oddly, they show an I-269 shield "west" of US 70/79.
QuoteWA-WA 99 is shown as a tunnel in the Seattle inset.
The now-closed Alaska Way Viaduct had a tunnel section anyway where it turned away from the waterfront, so this may not be anything new. The 2019 edition shows the old Alaska Way Viaduct alignment and shows nothing of the replacement tunnel alignment.
Quote from: PHLBOSDid last year's edition update the interchange numbers for I-295 or was such done in this year's edition?
Yes. The 2019 edition shows mile-based exit numbers for RI I-295.
Does the 2020 edition have OH 823 ( Portsmouth bypass) shown as completed? I know they correctly had it as under construction in the 2019 edition.
Quote from: Buck87 on April 29, 2019, 09:55:41 AM
Does the 2020 edition have OH 823 ( Portsmouth bypass) shown as completed? I know they correctly had it as under construction in the 2019 edition.
OH 823 is shown as complete, though they did not include any exit numbers for the interchanges marked.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 30, 2019, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on April 29, 2019, 09:55:41 AM
Does the 2020 edition have OH 823 ( Portsmouth bypass) shown as completed? I know they correctly had it as under construction in the 2019 edition.
OH 823 is shown as complete, though they did not include any exit numbers for the interchanges marked.
Are there any exit numbers shown for any of the non-interstate freeways in Ohio?
Has Rand McNally in this finally get US 209 right in PA between PA 33 and I-80 as an expressway instead of the freeway?
That always got me and it was not only Rand McNally as even General Drafting (old Esso and Exxon maps) show it as freeway as well.
They finally show CO-47 in Pueblo as a freeway where it goes by Colo. State University at Pueblo. It's been like that for over 20 years, but it's always been shown in the atlas as a two lane road. They also show Business Spur I-25 at Aguilar, with SPUR 25 inside the green shield. In Minnesota, they got the number change from MN-110 to 62 south of St. Paul, but missed the highway swap that extended MN-119 to U.S. 212 in exchange for turning back MN-275 in the far western part of the state. They also don't have the turnback of MN-5 east of MN-120 to Washington County. MN-5 in that area should be shown as County 14 on the Twin Cities inset.
Also, is this the first year the atlas doesn't show segments of highway that will be under construction?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 30, 2019, 09:08:40 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 30, 2019, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on April 29, 2019, 09:55:41 AM
Does the 2020 edition have OH 823 ( Portsmouth bypass) shown as completed? I know they correctly had it as under construction in the 2019 edition.
OH 823 is shown as complete, though they did not include any exit numbers for the interchanges marked.
Are there any exit numbers shown for any of the non-interstate freeways in Ohio?
No, I didn't check that out before answering.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2019, 09:09:24 PM
Has Rand McNally in this finally get US 209 right in PA between PA 33 and I-80 as an expressway instead of the freeway?
That always got me and it was not only Rand McNally as even General Drafting (old Esso and Exxon maps) show it as freeway as well.
The map indicates a freeway for the eastern 2 miles and expressway for the western 2 miles between I-80 and PA 33. Is this now at least partially correct?
^ Technically, yes. The mile-and-a-half or so between I-80 and the signal at Shafers School House Rd has no access.
Here is a summary of the changes to the inset map coverage that I noted in the 2020 edition of the Rand McNally Road Atlas from the 2019 edition:
CO: Insets are added for Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Great Sand Dunes National Park, and Grand Junction.
CO: The Pueblo inset is repositioned, and it is truncated slightly to the north and south.
CO: The Denver inset is repositioned, and its scale is reduced slightly. It is extended significantly to the north and slightly to the west, to now include Boulder and Longmont, but truncated slightly to the east and south. The Central Denver inset is repositioned and truncated slightly to the east.
CO: The standalone Boulder inset is removed. Instead, Boulder is covered on the Denver inset. However, because the Denver inset is a smaller scale map than the Boulder inset was, there is some loss of detail.
CO: The Rocky Mountain National Park inset is repositioned, and its size and scale are slightly reduced. The net result is that the coverage area is nearly the same (truncated very slightly to the east), and there is slightly less detail (e.g., mountain peaks removed).
CO: The Fort Collins inset is repositioned. It is extended significantly to the south to now include Loveland, and slightly to the west, but truncated slightly to the north and east. Its scale is reduced slightly, resulting in loss of a few details.
CO: The Colorado Springs inset is repositioned. It is extended slightly to the north, and truncated slightly to the east, south and west. Its scale is reduced slightly, resulting in loss of a few details.
CO: The Greeley inset is removed, a fairly rare instance of Rand McNally entirely removing an inset, without it being at least partially covered on another inset.
KY: The Mammoth Cave National Park inset is repositioned and extended in all directions, particularly east and west. Its scale is reduced slightly.
KY: The Louisville inset is extended slightly to the north and west, and truncated slightly to the east and south.
KY: The Owensboro inset is repositioned and truncated slightly to the north and south.
KY: The Bowling Green inset is repositioned.
KY: The Paducah inset is repositioned and extended to the north and west.
MN: An inset is added for Mankato.
MN: The scale is increased for the Duluth/Superior inset, resulting in more detail, but truncation to the north, east, south and west.
WI: The Milwaukee, Central Milwaukee, Janesville/Beloit, La Crosse, and Kenosha/Racine insets are repositioned.
WI: The Eau Claire inset is repositioned, extended significantly to the north and east to include Chippewa Falls, and extended slightly to the south. Its scale is reduced.
WI: The Sheboygan inset is repositioned, extended to the west and slightly to the north, and truncated slightly to the south. Its scale is reduced, resulting in loss of details.
None of my local Wal-Mart stores has either the 2019 or the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas!
Is it still offered at a discount in-store?
Quote from: Galaga King on May 09, 2019, 08:54:39 AM
None of my local Wal-Mart stores has either the 2019 or the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas!
Is it still offered at a discount in-store?
Well, you should look elsewhere for it, like Barnes & Noble or (you may not like this) Target!
Quote from: Henry on May 09, 2019, 10:01:21 AM
Quote from: Galaga King on May 09, 2019, 08:54:39 AM
None of my local Wal-Mart stores has either the 2019 or the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas!
Is it still offered at a discount in-store?
Well, you should look elsewhere for it, like Barnes & Noble or (you may not like this) Target!
Neither has the handy Wal-Mart (or any other) store directory in the RMcNs they sell. And the Wal-Mart edition is less expensive. Worth the wait, IMO.
I'm waiting for the 2020s to show up at Wal-Marts. I haven't seen one yet in the handful I've checked on the road, but the rack space they're usually stocked in is empty with no remaining 2019 editions. I take that as a sign the 2020s are on the way.
I saw one today and noticed the changes in the Milwaukee area. Moorland Rd in New Berlin is now marked as 4 lane between Grange and College even though it is still only 2 lane. Hwy 36 is marked as a freeway in a portion of Franklin. 76th street is now marked as 4 lane farther south as it was widened a few years ago. Portions of the Lake Parkway is now marked as a freeway I guess that would have to do with the recent speed limit increase now would considerer it a freeway. Pewaukee and the Village of Pewaukee are now considered separately. I also noticed a few state highways that were decommissoned long long ago like WI-103 and WI-184 that where still marked for many years after are finally gone and replaced with their replacement county routes. Other changes I noticed was the Denver inset now incudes Longmont and the Fort Collins inset includes Loveland. IL-390 is marked as a red line between Hwy 83 and York Rd. However I-165 in Kentucky is still not marked. As far as the Denver inset goes I thought it would make more sense to extend it south to include the rapidly growing city of Castle Rock.
Quote from: oscar on May 09, 2019, 10:54:21 AM
Neither has the handy Wal-Mart (or any other) store directory in the RMcNs they sell. And the Wal-Mart edition is less expensive. Worth the wait, IMO.
I'm waiting for the 2020s to show up at Wal-Marts. I haven't seen one yet in the handful I've checked on the road
Wait is over for me. Found it today (regular edition with store directory added) at the Wal-Mart in Woodstock IL.
WI: The Sheboygan inset is repositioned, extended to the west and slightly to the north, and truncated slightly to the south. Its scale is reduced, resulting in loss of details. [/quote]
Since this is a discussion about cartography, my cartography professor would remind us that when one zooms in/enlarges a map, they are reducing the scale (i. e. going from 1”=500 to 1”=200 reduces that relationship). Zooming out increases the scale.
But 1/500 is a smaller fraction than 1/200. Therefore, zooming out is a reduction.
:spin:
I bought one last night at Reasor's. I've looked at several Walmarts but they didn't have any.
One thing I have wondered about forever: how does Elmira, NY continue to get an inset map? Is it to just fill space?
Also, what did Greeley, CO do to Rand McNally? It not only had its inset removed, it also got removed from the Mileage between Cities chart.
Quote from: Kniwt on April 25, 2019, 02:15:59 PM
Alas, the iPad version apparently hasn't been updated yet, but every indication is that the annual update will continue to be free for existing users.
Sadly, no. Rand McNally has apparently discontinued its iOS atlas apps and removed them from sale on the App Store.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 15, 2019, 05:09:10 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on April 25, 2019, 02:15:59 PM
Alas, the iPad version apparently hasn't been updated yet, but every indication is that the annual update will continue to be free for existing users.
Sadly, no. Rand McNally has apparently discontinued its iOS atlas apps and removed them from sale on the App Store.
Well, crap. The free annual updates did seem almost too good to be true ... not to mention a rather unwise business model. Guess I'm heading to Walmart soon.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 25, 2019, 03:37:12 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 25, 2019, 01:42:56 PMNJ-I-295 is shown around Trenton and an I-95 shield appears on the extension of the Turnpike to PA.
...
PA-An I-95 shield appears along the Turnpike east of I-295 in the Philadelphia inset.
Since the I-95/PA Turnpike connection wasn't yet completed when the 2019 edition came out; not everything was completely edited/updated in that version... particularly revised interchange numbers for the I-95/PA Turnpike portion as well as PA 413 (old Exit 40/current Exit 39) interchange along the Delaware Expressway and changing the color of the I-95/Turnpike stretch between I-276/295 to the AET barrier as a 'free highway'.
Follow-Up to the above after thumbing through the 2020 edition while at
Barnes & Noble: the stretch of PA Turnpike that is now I-95 is indeed shown as a free highway between the I-276/295 (Exit 40) and US 13 (Exit 42) interchanges. Toll barrier lines are shown along the
tolled stretches just east of US 13 and west of I-95/295.
Oddly, the connector road between I-95 & US 13 (where the Delaware Valley toll plaza once stood) is now shown as a free highway. Prior editions showed this connector as conventional road (grey line).
While this thread is on the Rand McNally atlas; it is worth noting that the latest AAA maps for this area now show the new/current I-95 routing as well as the old I-95 as I-295... though AAA still shows the
new I-95 between I-276/295 & US 13 as a toll road. Such is not technically correct. On AAA's New Jersey/Pennsylvania map, one of the new I-295 shields on the main map page north of Trenton appears to be a 2-d shield with
295 numerals squeezed in; must've been an 11th hour change.
One thing I forgot to check was to see whether Rand McNally has since added the PA Turnpike E-ZPass Only interchanges as well as Exit 329 off I-76 westbound (Henderson Rd. signed as
King of Prussia/Norristown).
For the AAA maps, the only E-ZPass Only interchange added was the most-recent Exit 87 (PA 903) off I-476 near Hickory Run.
Haven't seen it mentioned yet... I-69 is also now shown along the recently completed portion between Bloomington and Martinsville in Indiana.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 01, 2019, 09:06:33 AM
Haven't seen it mentioned yet... I-69 is also now shown along the recently completed portion between Bloomington and Martinsville in Indiana.
Which is absolutely nice to drive on.
Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2019, 08:11:51 AM
But 1/500 is a smaller fraction than 1/200. Therefore, zooming out is a reduction.
:spin:
It's not viewed as a fraction (1/500), it's viewed as a relationship (1:500). I'll take her word since she has a Ph. D. in geography.
Ratio, fractions -- same thing. :spin:
Quote from: Rothman on August 14, 2019, 06:03:58 AM
Ratio, fractions -- same thing. :spin:
Not really. Do you have a Ph. D. in cartography? As I said, I'll trust a professor's expertise over yours. 🙂🙂
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on August 14, 2019, 06:17:03 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 14, 2019, 06:03:58 AM
Ratio, fractions -- same thing. :spin:
Not really. Do you have a Ph. D. in cartography? As I said, I'll trust a professor's expertise over yours. [emoji846][emoji846]
Suit yourself.
While I was on vacation for the last two weeks, I purchased the 2020 atlas at Walmart. One item not mentioned (& I'm not sure if the prior 2019 version showed such) was how the Mass Pike (I-90) is shown post-AET conversion... particularly the now-free sections in Springfield and south of Worcester.
In addition to the above (I-90 is now shown as free between Exits 4 & 7 as well as between Exits 10 & 11 (includes Exit 10A)); it also shows the stretch between MA 16 (Exit 16) and I-95/MA 128 (Exit 14/15) as a free highway. If Exit 16 was a full/complete movement interchange, showing that short stretch as free would be correct; but since Exit 16 is a partial-movement interchange (westbound exit/eastbound entrance), that depiction is not correct... there's an AET gantry between Exits 16 & 17 with 17 being the next full-movement interchange east of I-95. That short stretch should still be shown as a tolled facility.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on August 14, 2019, 05:46:37 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2019, 08:11:51 AM
But 1/500 is a smaller fraction than 1/200. Therefore, zooming out is a reduction.
:spin:
It's not viewed as a fraction (1/500), it's viewed as a relationship (1:500). I'll take her word since she has a Ph. D. in geography.
As someone with just a BS in geography along with 28 years as a professional cartographer, they are most certainly viewed as fractions. A 1:500 scale is a smaller scale than a 1:200 scale in every textbook I've owned, because 1/500 is the smaller fraction just like Rothman stated. It's also a relationship. But that doesn't mean you're right.
But don't take my word for it. Let's reference the Carto intro text (https://www.esri.com/industries/k-12/education/~/media/Files/Pdfs/industries/k-12/pdfs/intrcart.pdf) from ESRI (https://www.esri.com), who know a thing or two about cartography.
- Maps often are referred to as being "large scale" or "small scale". Oddly enough, a large scale map shows more detail than a small scale map, which confuses many people. If you think of scale in terms of fractions, however, this makes sense. The fraction 1/10,000 is larger than 1/25,000,000. Thus, a map at 1:10,000 would be a larger scale than a map at 1:25,000,000. There are no rules about what is considered large scale or small scale, but generally, 1:24,000 and larger is large scale and 1:250,000 and smaller is small scale.
There is no PhD in Geography who would claim 1:500 is bigger than 1:200. At least one who know what they were talking about. I think you misunderstood.
Any map that's smaller than life size has to generalize features.
Quote from: bandit957 on August 20, 2019, 07:36:29 PM
Any map that's smaller than life size has to generalize features.
That is correct. In map series (e.g., USGS topo maps) there is even a priority. I don't know what it is at USGS, but this is a spec example from my office (NGA (http://www.nga.mil), formerly DMA). (For the record, I'm retired.)
- Rivers and other bodies of water are placed as exactly as possible
- Railroads are offset at a distance to avoid overprinting
- Roads are offset from both Rivers and Railroads to avoid overprinting
Obviously, there is some cartographic judgment when collecting. These specs were all thrown out when we went from collecting for paper products to digital products when we changed to collecting centerline data. But making maps in densely featured areas (often, but not always urban) was always a challenge. When I was collecting maps, it was usually Topographic Line Map series (TLM 1:50k and 1:100K) and occasionally Joint Operation Graphics (1:250K). It was back when few people saw satellite imagery, so I loved my job looking at places all over the world. Nowadays everyone collects centerline data because good software can do the offset for you if needed.
Quote from: bandit957 on August 20, 2019, 07:36:29 PM
Any map that's smaller than life size has to generalize features.
I'm pretty sure you could map 1:2 accurately in every detail.
Quote from: kphoger on August 21, 2019, 02:16:02 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on August 20, 2019, 07:36:29 PM
Any map that's smaller than life size has to generalize features.
I'm pretty sure you could map 1:2 accurately in every detail.
It's easier, but not necessarily true. It's a ridiculous scale for this exercise, but as soon as you start shrinking from 1:1 you quickly hit a point where at least something must be offset to avoid overprints, simplified for a variety of reasons, or even exaggerated for comprehension (this last happens more often that you think). Even at 1:1 it can be an issue. Let's say you are mapping a circuit board. There is no way to make it legible at scale. And don't forget labelling. Labels take space too. (As do legends and compass roses.) If there are no labels, you don't have a map; you have a scale model. Yes, you can put all your labels, legends, and north arrows on the margin. But then you need guide lines from the labels to their objects and it doesn't take many to create a serious legibility issue.
There are also issues where a decision must be made when items align vertically, e.g., wires along a power line. If you generalize and just say power line, you have lost accuracy. If you map every single line, how do you do it? You can create parallel lines, but now you've created some horizontal accuracy. In any case, converting a 3D world to a 2D map without even a minimal amount of accuracy lost is practically impossible.
There aren't many instances where a 1:2 map wouldn't be accurate. But it can still happen.