Upon hearing of the numerous errors in the latest Rand McNally, and noticing countless inexcusable errors in just about every other map out there, late last year I took on the project of creating my own road atlas, which has recently become what I focus spending all my spare time on.
I started with North Carolina, and have been working on it since. Everything is drawn by hand, traced from aerial imagery in Inkscape, which takes a while, but this, coupled with significant amounts of research, results in a vastly improved map, at least in my opinion.
Here's what I have so far:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg841.imageshack.us%2Fimg841%2F6752%2Fexport.png&hash=1e9bd4d1e96233b8bbd375240f946f9de7ee2f3f) (http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6752/export.png)
(Click for full resolution)
Obviously it's not a finished product (half the state is missing!), but the map so far is in a mostly final state, so I would really appreciate some feedback on things like sizes, colors, legibility, etc., and of course any corrections would be GREATLY appreciated.
Oh and yes it will eventually have a whitish background.
That is brilliant - must have taken ages. I like the way you've used the correct state highway shield rather than the generic circle that other maps use.
One thing I would like to see is partial interchanges shown with a triangle that points towards the direction the ramps face. Where maps show no distinction between full and partial interchanges this can be annoying if the exit nearest your destination isn't available in your direction :banghead:
Holy Buckets! Nice effort!
Exceptional quality there, for sure. Keep us updated with new postings from it!
I've got to draw something up using inkscape to hang in my office - the quality available from it is just exceptional. And I better know what the hell I'm doing, considering I do have a degree in cartography that I never use.
I have always been a fan of "major" city limits being shown.
A member of a UK roads forum drew a series of maps of an imaginary country a few years ago with similar high quality as the North Carolina map at the top of this thread. One thing I like about it is the ramp detail is shown at interchanges as well as city limits.
The map is here (http://www.chris5156.plus.com/fantasy/) by clicking on the first link on the page.
BIG points for actually using the state highway shield. Professional cartographers always seem to just stick to circles and ovals, this is far superior.
One bit of critique: keep the shield size consistent. I think I get why you're making them different, but it looks awkward and doesn't really convey any information the style of the line doesn't.
That's really good. The only thing I would change is to use cutout shields for US routes instead of the shields with the black borders.
Looks damn good. I used to make atlases before by hand, and I believe I made one on Paint when I was much younger.
The only critique is to use cut-outs (I'm not sure how you would pull that off with the state routes), and curve the text for the various bays and rivers.
The only real thing I like to see that isn't there is a hillshade of some kind.
You can get DEMs from the USGS Seamless (http://seamless.usgs.gov/)server- just change the color scheme so it's more map-friendly and then bump the transparency way down so it's aesthetically pleasing (I'm not sure how easy that is in Inkscape ,but if you can snag an ArcGIS license from somewhere it would be really easy)
I hope you intend to include county lines. That's something most roadgeeks would like to see.
I think you should lose the backgrounds on the shields as well. For the NC state shields, use a squared-off diamond with the number inside–the rounded diamond corners don't really add too much and since you're going to have these all over the map, it's probably better to use a simpler shape (in addition this allows you to use a rectangle object instead of paths, which will make your SVG file smaller and use less memory).
I'm not sure FHWA Series fonts make the best map. Yes, by all means, use them on the route markers, and roadgeeks have a natural tendency to reach for those first, but for fonts, I've found that other fonts can make things much more aesthetically pleasing. (If you want to see bad font choices ruin a map, get a Louisiana official. Optima for city names is tolerable, but parish names in all-caps Chancery Cursive is just a godawful design choice). Here's a look at a couple of my maps with a few fonts that I've found work well for maps–Pigiarniq for the city names (a free font available from the Government of Nunavut) and Rockwell for the county names).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F4e%2FWashita_County%252C_Okla.svg%2F800px-Washita_County%252C_Okla.svg.png&hash=de665dc84fbd1e62f35cafc513cea10eed3d5c79)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcd%2FMarquette_County%252C_Mich.svg%2F547px-Marquette_County%252C_Mich.svg.png&hash=5f8c03a096832ee6b76be89abffee72f587b9ae8)
Thanks guys! I'm glad to hear that people like it, and these suggestions are exactly the type of thing I wanted.
Quote from: Truvelo on September 18, 2010, 03:25:51 PM
One thing I would like to see is partial interchanges shown with a triangle that points towards the direction the ramps face. Where maps show no distinction between full and partial interchanges this can be annoying if the exit nearest your destination isn't available in your direction :banghead:
Great idea, I contemplated a while back a way to show partial interchanges and did not come up with anything satisfactory. I'll implement that in the next update.
Quote from: travelinmiles on September 18, 2010, 03:45:26 PM
I have always been a fan of "major" city limits being shown.
I would like to show both city and county lines, I just need to find the best way how to. Most vectors I've found on the internet use a different map projection than I am, and thus are extremely difficult to adapt.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2010, 04:56:11 PM
BIG points for actually using the state highway shield. Professional cartographers always seem to just stick to circles and ovals, this is far superior.
One bit of critique: keep the shield size consistent. I think I get why you're making them different, but it looks awkward and doesn't really convey any information the style of the line doesn't.
As you probably guessed, I made the shields on primary (US and select state) routes larger (25x25 instead of 20x20 px) for emphasis, but you're right, that can probably be inferred equally well from the line itself.
Quote from: bugo on September 18, 2010, 05:08:53 PM
That's really good. The only thing I would change is to use cutout shields for US routes instead of the shields with the black borders.
I just tried that. My plan was to use cutouts from the beginning, but I was lazy. However, I just tried a different way and it worked in 5 seconds flat. Looks amazing! Thanks for the suggestion.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 18, 2010, 05:16:16 PM
The only critique is to use cut-outs (I'm not sure how you would pull that off with the state routes), and curve the text for the various bays and rivers.
See cutouts comment above, thanks for the suggestion. As for curved text, I only recently figured that out, and it can be seen along the ferry routes. I don't really think it has any benefit over horizontal text for any currently labeled rivers though, but I'll be sure to consider that where appropriate in the future.
Quote from: corco on September 18, 2010, 05:19:58 PM
The only real thing I like to see that isn't there is a hillshade of some kind.
You can get DEMs from the USGS Seamless (http://seamless.usgs.gov/)server- just change the color scheme so it's more map-friendly and then bump the transparency way down so it's aesthetically pleasing (I'm not sure how easy that is in Inkscape ,but if you can snag an ArcGIS license from somewhere it would be really easy)
I've discussed the possibility of finishing this project in ArcGIS with Alex, as that would be much easier (especially to implement things like your suggestion), but I'd really prefer not to have to pay for it. I have access to it at school (I took a GIS class 2 years ago) and at work (internship with City of Newport News Public Works Dept.), but not at home right now. Do they offer educational licenses for free?
This could be done in Inkscape relatively easy, if I had the topography as a vector image of a suitable size, as Inkscape has a transparency slider.
Scott:
All good suggestions. Yes I plan on including county lines, I just haven't decided how to implement them yet. (And in case anybody hadn't picked up on it, hollowed-out circles are county seats).
As for the shields, I've made them cutouts, but I think I will leave the corners of the state route shields rounded. It just looks so fantastic! :sombrero:
I'll have to think on the fonts though. I really like the way the FHWA ones look... tell you what, if multiple people dislike the way they look, I'll change them.
Your maps look great, by the way!
One random thought I had:
I know Rand McNally has the habit of not showing those odd expressway/freeway hybrids as anything other than divided boulevards. (worst example would be New Jersey's Route 17, full of interchanges that are not at all diagrammed out in the Metro NYC inset)
How would those be shown on your atlas?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 18, 2010, 10:16:14 PM
One random thought I had:
I know Rand McNally has the habit of not showing those odd expressway/freeway hybrids as anything other than divided boulevards. (worst example would be New Jersey's Route 17, full of interchanges that are not at all diagrammed out in the Metro NYC inset)
How would those be shown on your atlas?
Dark red lines, as some roads already are. I give roads that have no (or maybe 1 or 2) visible structure entrances, and typically a mix of interchanges and intersections this color.
Do you intend to show population in any way? It's generally best to use differing dot symbols in addition to font size, since it can be kind of difficult to judge exactly what bracket a city is in just by estimating the font size. If you do use different dots for different size cities, don't fall in the trap of having another dot for county seats, thus obscuring their population–this is the most annoying thing Oklahoma DOT maps do. I took a page out of KDOT's book and designated the county seats with diamonds around the dot for the county seat (I also stole their dot structure, since it seems to work well).
QuoteDo they offer educational licenses for free?
They don't. But I believe a 1-year educational license is $100.
In a general sense, this sort of thing is why having access to a GIS platform is handy. Especially now with ADC's status as a huge question mark (noted in another thread), I've been able to create a close approximation of the size and scale they use on their street map books.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 18, 2010, 10:59:15 PM
Do you intend to show population in any way? It's generally best to use differing dot symbols in addition to font size, since it can be kind of difficult to judge exactly what bracket a city is in just by estimating the font size. If you do use different dots for different size cities, don't fall in the trap of having another dot for county seats, thus obscuring their population–this is the most annoying thing Oklahoma DOT maps do. I took a page out of KDOT's book and designated the county seats with diamonds around the dot for the county seat (I also stole their dot structure, since it seems to work well).
I guess it must not be prominent enough, but I've always used 5px for <1000 people, 7.5px for <10,000, 10px for <25,000, 12.5px for <50,000 and so on. text sizes are 10pt font for 5px and 7.5px dots, and then increase in increments of 2. The hollowed-out county seat dots I use have the same sizes as regular dots.
Quote from: froggie on September 18, 2010, 11:03:06 PM
They don't. But I believe a 1-year educational license is $100.
In a general sense, this sort of thing is why having access to a GIS platform is handy. Especially now with ADC's status as a huge question mark (noted in another thread), I've been able to create a close approximation of the size and scale they use on their street map books.
I guess using ArcGIS is pretty much out of the question then. I really would rather not have to spend $100 on it, especially for just a year when I don't need it for anything other than, simply put, a hobby.
QGIS is free but if all you need to use it for is to convert to a different projection it will do the job.
QuoteDo they offer educational licenses for free?
Yes, if you know where to look. Find your local college and tell them you have interest in GIS- I bet you can get a free license. You may even be able to contact ESRI and tell them you are a high school student with GIS interests. I got a free student 1-year ArcEditor license for no cost just for being at University of Wyoming, they practically handed them out like candy. With all due respect to froggie, I bet I've explored this issue a lot more recently than he has (i.e. my undergrad major is in GIS (I'm graduating this December) and I've received one within the last year with no strings or difficulty attached- we even had them sitting on an open table at the Wyoming GIS Center table during Geography Awareness Week last year), and yes, you can get a free 1-year ArcEditor license.
I bet your high school has the means to get them- just ask the teacher.
If that fails, bittorrent
I highly support helping you on this. I am getting sick and tired of errors on common maps. We need us roadgeeks making some stuff ;) I am not good at making them, but I will be happy to help look them over for anything needed and suggest cosmetics.
Also, a minor nitpick on your North Carolina map. Manteo, NC, you missed NC 400 :) - the shortest signed SR in the state of North Carolina.
I'll try the CTE teacher who taught my GIS class two years ago, I still talk to him... and if that fails, my Gov School programming teacher can probably get it for me... they'll buy you a license for anything pretty much with all that money they have.
I think I'm dead set on trying ArcGIS for this now...
Scott: Is the interface similar in QGIS?
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on September 19, 2010, 12:53:15 AM
I highly support helping you on this. I am getting sick and tired of errors on common maps. We need us roadgeeks making some stuff ;) I am not good at making them, but I will be happy to help look them over for anything needed and suggest cosmetics.
Pointing out any errors is greatly appreciated and plenty of help enough. ;)
QuoteAlso, a minor nitpick on your North Carolina map. Manteo, NC, you missed NC 400 :) - the shortest signed SR in the state of North Carolina.
I purposefully left off NC 400, actually, because it is so short! It would have been little more than a dot on the map.
QuoteI bet I've explored this issue a lot more recently than he has (i.e. my undergrad major is in GIS (I'm graduating this December) and I've received one within the last year with no strings or difficulty attached- we even had them sitting on an open table at the Wyoming GIS Center table during Geography Awareness Week last year), and yes, you can get a free 1-year ArcEditor license.
Could be because I'm looking at different schools. I've also mainly been focusing on a college/program that suits my needs and have only barley dabbled into what program costs would be.
QuoteScott: Is the interface similar in QGIS?
I've dabbled in QGIS...the interface is remotely similar but the buttonology is vastly different. If you're familiar at all with Arc, the easiest way I can explain Q is that it combines ArcMap and ArcCatalog into a single module.
Also, I don't like how QGIS handles projections. Arc is much more intuitive in that regard.
I'm potentially working out a way to get a copy of Arc, but in the meantime will continue working on NC in Inkscape.
And I have updated the map to include all cutout shields now: http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8240/exporto.png
How do they look?
Definitely better without the borders. Certainly on the US shields at least, the diamonds I could kinda go either way on (on that note, though, if you do New Jersey, be sure to make a point of including the border on their circles).
I see you've gotten rid of the size difference. Also an improvement. Your 3di shields are still smaller than your 2di shields, though...
One other point worth making: what looks good on a computer screen and what looks good on paper are not necessarily the same. The final test once you're done is to print it out and see how you like it.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 19, 2010, 12:59:26 AM
I'll try the CTE teacher who taught my GIS class two years ago, I still talk to him... and if that fails, my Gov School programming teacher can probably get it for me... they'll buy you a license for anything pretty much with all that money they have.
I think I'm dead set on trying ArcGIS for this now...
Scott: Is the interface similar in QGIS?
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on September 19, 2010, 12:53:15 AM
I highly support helping you on this. I am getting sick and tired of errors on common maps. We need us roadgeeks making some stuff ;) I am not good at making them, but I will be happy to help look them over for anything needed and suggest cosmetics.
Pointing out any errors is greatly appreciated and plenty of help enough. ;)
QuoteAlso, a minor nitpick on your North Carolina map. Manteo, NC, you missed NC 400 :) - the shortest signed SR in the state of North Carolina.
I purposefully left off NC 400, actually, because it is so short! It would have been little more than a dot on the map.
Not having NC 400 means its not technically correct. Make it a dot, and link an arrow to the road.
Really cool! I can't wait to see New Hampshire and Pennsylvania :cool:
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on September 19, 2010, 08:15:21 PM
Not having NC 400 means its not technically correct. Make it a dot, and link an arrow to the road.
Not necessarily. Omitting details not clear enough to see at the current scale is necessary for a map to be usable. Otherwise maps would just be multicolored blobs of ink from including everything ever.
The other option would be to take cartographic liberty and exaggerate NC 400's length to display it, which is probably would I would do given what I perceive to the be purpose of the map, but either omission or extension based on cartographic liberty are totally valid options given the scale of the map and the desired aesthetics.
A dot would be pointless because it wouldn't have any meaning- it would just be a rogue NC 400 shield that would be more confusing than useful. Either extend the road beyond its actual path to make it seem real or omit it entirely. Both possibilities seem to meet the purpose of the map, so go with your gut.
I'm leaving it off. I would be more inclined to include it as an over-extended line with a shield pointing to it if 1) it actually went somewhere significant, and 2) there were even room to show that on the map. Roanoke Island is cluttered enough as it is, IMO.
And for the record, NC 400's not the only state route segment I've left off.
The Interstate shields are neutered. ;)
I love what I see; my only real gripe is the symbology colors. But that's because I've grown up with the Thomas Guides...
This is looking good - what a huge project, though... not only the initial creation, but also the ongoing task of maintenance.
My two cents about county seats: I'm not a fan of using different dots to indicate county seats - the info that's being conveyed isn't really important enough to justify the added confusion. The best solution I've seen is to do the dot size and font size just like any other town - the only difference is that county seat labels get underlined.
I am a fan of using state-specific route shields, and I like both the NC and US markers on your latest version. However, some state shields are going to have to be "dumbed-down" a bit, in order to work on a map of this scale (MN immediately comes to mind, and your WY markers are probably going to have to be sans-cowboy). I think that's true of your 2di shields as well. They may be accurate, but the word "Interstate" is hardly legible on-screen, and will probably not print well either. I'd just remove the text and go with an empty red area, like you've done on your 3di's.
I've never used Inkscape... I assume it has layers? If so, I would move the yellow inset box down to a lower layer, so that it's not adding yellow to features like route markers and interchange boxes.
Why are some proposed routes green? Is that because they're projected to be toll routes? If not, then I'd just go with the same color that you'd use if the road were already built (or maybe the same color tinted back). The dashed line should be enough to indicate that it doesn't currently exist.
Even if you do end up going with city limit fills, I think you still need to use dots for the bigger cities, like Raleigh, Cary, Durham, etc. Traditionally these get placed in the downtown area.
I think the text halos around the labels for bigger cities need to be a little thicker.
It looks like you're using a gray stroke around water - I would suggest no stroke. Or if you need a stroke, then use the same color as the fill.
Does the font you've chosen have an italic flavor? If so, I'd suggest going with italics for natural features, such as the cape labels and water labels. And I agree with the poster who said curved type for the rivers would look better. I would also add the word "River" to each river, or at least the abbreviation "R."
I think the fills for forests and military facilities can be toned down quite a bit - those kinds of things don't need to be so visually prominent on a transportation map.
needs '61 spec good-looking shields, not '70 spec ugly ones! :sombrero:
Quote from: Bickendan on September 20, 2010, 02:53:48 AM
The Interstate shields are neutered. ;)
I love what I see; my only real gripe is the symbology colors. But that's because I've grown up with the Thomas Guides...
Could you really see the state name anyway? :-P
Quote from: usends on September 20, 2010, 04:47:15 PM
This is looking good - what a huge project, though... not only the initial creation, but also the ongoing task of maintenance.
My two cents about county seats: I'm not a fan of using different dots to indicate county seats - the info that's being conveyed isn't really important enough to justify the added confusion. The best solution I've seen is to do the dot size and font size just like any other town - the only difference is that county seat labels get underlined.
That's a good idea. I'll play with it. I think I'm just partial to the hollowed-out dots because that's what *shudder* Rand uses.
QuoteI am a fan of using state-specific route shields, and I like both the NC and US markers on your latest version. However, some state shields are going to have to be "dumbed-down" a bit, in order to work on a map of this scale (MN immediately comes to mind, and your WY markers are probably going to have to be sans-cowboy). I think that's true of your 2di shields as well. They may be accurate, but the word "Interstate" is hardly legible on-screen, and will probably not print well either. I'd just remove the text and go with an empty red area, like you've done on your 3di's.
Yeah I was planning on simplifying the other states, but leaving them overall very close in appearance to actual signs in the field. As for interstate shields, the 3dis do have the word "interstate" in them, but I'll try removing it from them all too.
QuoteI've never used Inkscape... I assume it has layers? If so, I would move the yellow inset box down to a lower layer, so that it's not adding yellow to features like route markers and interchange boxes.
It does have layers. A very intuitive system actually, each object is its own layer. I had purposely put the inset boxes on the very top, but again, I'll play with moving them down.
QuoteWhy are some proposed routes green? Is that because they're projected to be toll routes? If not, then I'd just go with the same color that you'd use if the road were already built (or maybe the same color tinted back). The dashed line should be enough to indicate that it doesn't currently exist.
Correct, they're both toll roads. Color choices like that will be clearly explained on the legend, whenever I make it.
QuoteEven if you do end up going with city limit fills, I think you still need to use dots for the bigger cities, like Raleigh, Cary, Durham, etc. Traditionally these get placed in the downtown area.
Meh... I'm mixed on this one. I really don't like to, but I guess it would clearly show what specifically is downtown.
QuoteI think the text halos around the labels for bigger cities need to be a little thicker.
Okay, I'll try that.
QuoteIt looks like you're using a gray stroke around water - I would suggest no stroke. Or if you need a stroke, then use the same color as the fill.
Nope, no stroke. That's just an effect of the fact that I imported the water as a raster image (rather than drawing it as a vector in Inkscape) and the map as a whole currently does not have a background. That "stroke" will not appear on the final product.
QuoteDoes the font you've chosen have an italic flavor? If so, I'd suggest going with italics for natural features, such as the cape labels and water labels. And I agree with the poster who said curved type for the rivers would look better. I would also add the word "River" to each river, or at least the abbreviation "R."
Simple enough, and done. Italicized and added an "R.", and curved some of them.
QuoteI think the fills for forests and military facilities can be toned down quite a bit - those kinds of things don't need to be so visually prominent on a transportation map.
A lighter color maybe? Some transparency? I'll try a little lighter colors.
Jake: Shield generator acceptable? :P
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 20, 2010, 09:02:09 PM
Jake: Shield generator acceptable? :P
yeah, try '61 generic (aka neutered) for the interstates, and '48 spec US but make it a cutout by removing the extra white around the edges.
But the shield generator can't save files as .svg, can it? I think I might just keep them the way they already are, to save me a little work. They aren't TOO bad, are they?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 20, 2010, 09:44:17 PM
But the shield generator can't save files as .svg, can it?
nope. that would put me out of business :)
QuoteI think I might just keep them the way they already are, to save me a little work. They aren't TOO bad, are they?
they're pretty hideous. Blame Penna DOT. I can see why all kinds of official sources use them (because they are the federal standard) but what gets me is why a lot of places online use them too. Wikipedia, for instance. You do not need the extra 2.5% legibility because you are not reading Wikipedia in 24" size while doing 65mph.
Wow, this is damned good work here.
For legibility's sake, I suggest you don't use the 1948 US cutout shields... mostly because of the small "US" on the top. If you're glancing at a road atlas I doubt that detail will aid someone all that much. And wouldn't Wikipedia be using them since that's how most modern U.S. Highways are signed?
I didn't mean the 1948 state/US spec, because that would be illegible in the small format.
this style would make the most sense:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MS/MS19560841i1.jpg)
I do like the vintage feel of the series-C numerals...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 20, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 20, 2010, 09:44:17 PMI think I might just keep them the way they already are, to save me a little work. They aren't TOO bad, are they?
they're pretty hideous. Blame Penna DOT. I can see why all kinds of official sources use them (because they are the federal standard) but what gets me is why a lot of places online use them too. Wikipedia, for instance. You do not need the extra 2.5% legibility because you are not reading Wikipedia in 24" size while doing 65mph.
No, but at 20px in height in the junction lists on Wikipedia articles, the state names won't show up either.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 21, 2010, 06:09:07 AM
No, but at 20px in height in the junction lists on Wikipedia articles, the state names won't show up either.
I do not mean the state-named variant. Scroll down a bit for the 84 shield I think would make a great abstract example.
UPDATE!
Applied most of the suggestions from this thread (cutout shields, separate icons for partial interchanges - triangles, adjusted coloration of shaded areas, halo around text, water body names), and finished the Raleigh-Durham area, as well as pretty much the whole state east of US 1.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg828.imageshack.us%2Fimg828%2F6752%2Fexport.png&hash=f02ba135d2df4cb32bcff71d4e84844712f6784e) (http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/6752/export.png)
As a guy who gets paid to do this kind of stuff, I'll throw in some suggestions.
Someone mentioned italicizing hydro type, that's definitely good; I'd also suggest using a serif font for that purpose. It follows good precedent set by the USGS.
I don't know what you're syntax will be for labeling mountains and stuff in the western part of the state, but the labels for the capes should follow whatever you plan on using for those land features. Capes, points, beaches, peninsulas and islands should be thought of as land features. In other words, they should probably be black.
The word "interstate" in the interstate shields is definitely an unnecessary detail.
You've got a nice wide palette for categorizing roads that includes, what, 4 types of divided highway? Intriguing, but it's not immediately obvious what the difference is between your dual orange highways and your dual dark red highways. I'm not sure if that distinction is particularly useful since you already distinguish between divided highways as either an urban arterial or a rural expressway. The same can be said for the dark red stroke used on the NC 211 bypass of Bladenboro. I think the addition of a few grade separations (but not yet total access control) isn't quite deserving of a whole new category.
Interesting choice for a rest area/wayside symbol. They're a little tough to see on a freeway line, though. Perhaps a thin stroke will make them pop just enough. It's either that or a different color, and I like that blue for rest areas; right off the signs.
What are your thoughts on half-interchange markers?
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 28, 2010, 01:49:35 PM
What are your thoughts on half-interchange markers?
I would use rectangular half-sized boxes to mark partial interchanges. Either that or regular boxes that are half black.
Another thing I would change is to use elongated shields with both numbers in the shield for duplexed routes. I would also use a smaller font in these stretched shields. I would also put banners like "ALT" in the top of elongated shields. Here's an example of both from the Oklahoma map (even though I would put "ALT" in the top of the shield rather than in the bottom):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi167.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu126%2Fbugo348%2Fokshields.png%3Ft%3D1285710304&hash=fcd5a1fabd103016c770d1db5b2dc1225ace7ee8)
triplemultiplex:
-I haven't really decided on how to label land features yet. I don't really see a problem with doing water and land features differently, but I'll try it both ways.
-You're not the only one who has mentioned the interstate shields. I'll remove that.
-I haven't created a legend yet, but divided highways include the following:
--orange: divided arterial;
--dark red: limited-access expressway (intersections but no driveways). Despite what you sqidabout this category, I would personally find the information very useful. I feel that it is important to know if you are on an expressway or an arterial, and it's always been a pet peeve of mine that Rand, for example, doesn't include this information;
--blue: free limited-access freeway;
--green: toll limited-access freeway;
undivided highways fall into these same categories, with the addition of grey for minor highways (thick: numbered; thin: unnumbered)
-I made the rest area blocks a much brighter blue so that theywould stand out from freeway lines. I think the contrast is sufficient for this, as that is not an insanely important feature that really needs to stand out. I'll try a few different strokes.
-As for partial interchanges, if you'll read my last post you'll see that I've already begun adding them (distorted triangles). I welcome any and all opinions on them though.
Bugo:
- while it's probably the most efficient way of doing it, I DESPISE putting multiple numbers in one shield, and flat out refuse to do it, even with banners. Additionally, I want the shields to look like they do out on the road for the most part.