It seems to me that every state (and other similar jursidictions) have their own style of Department of Transportation map, unlike AAA or Rand McNally which has the same style of map just for each new state. So what do you like or dislike about your state's or another state's official highway map. For instance, the Indiana map is easy to use since when you open it you can see the map of the state instantly and not have to worry much about fliping the map around to read it. However the map goes only as far as showing the interstates, US highways, state highways, and a few connector roads and wouldn't be much of a help if you have to navagate around county and local roads. Also, the maps on the back of individual Indiana cities are generally good for knowing where the major streets are my only complaint is that the Indianapolis inset map doesn't show any of the surrounding suburbs while the Northwest Indiana and Falls Cities (Jeffersonville, New Albany) areas do show the surrounding communities. Likewise, since the map was designed by the same person, other than for highway changes and expanded cities the style of the map has remained the same for at least 40 years or so.
I like how Wisconsin's highway map distinguishes expressway-grade stretches of divided highway (no traffic lights, few if any private driveways) from uncontrolled-access divided highways, and how they appear similar to full-fledged freeways. Why make a big distinction between highways with similar function?
I like the cartography on most state highway maps better than I do Rand McNally. I know what you mean about the Indiana map and the lack of local detail-I've noticed that too. Oklahoma is much the same way in showing very few non state-maintained roads. I like Illinois's map as far as the cartography and detail, but the one thing I find annoying is having all of the city insets on the reverse side and having to fold the map the opposite way to get to the insets. In general though, I like most state highway maps-I usually use an atlas to plan trips and for quick reference and I use state highway maps out in the field because they usually have more detail and are at a higher resolution than an atlas.
The Official State of Texas highway maps don't even show all the FM Roads. It would not be possible to show them all due to the fact that there are so many so close together. I'm not complaining about this because you can't really fit them all in.
My biggest complaint about the Texas maps is that they don't differentiate between divided and controlled access on non-interstate highways. Rand McNally does.
The biggest mistake I've seen is the omission of the new SH 121 at Lewisville in several editions after the highway was constructed.
I still think Washington has the best cartography- that map is beautiful and shows everything a map of Washington could reasonably show. It's so...legible. That map is a textbook example of what a good map should look like. If I were teaching a cartography class, I would give every student a copy of that map for an example of how to make a good highway map.
Wyoming's isn't bad. It's great for topography, but not so good for roads. The design was done in the 50s and it has just been updated every couple years since, so it looks a bit dated.
Idaho's is terrible. Coeur d'Alene is even spelled wrong (and has been for years) as Couer d'Alene. County lines have a nearly identical weight and stroke as major highways, which is completely stupid. I can't even imagine a worse looking map.
Colorado's is boring, but it works. It's clearly just an ArcGIS printout, and some of the color choices are weird (bright blue for secondary roads, for instance), but it mostly gets the job done.
Nebraska's isn't too bad, except unpaved roads are striped with a similar line as county lines, which is weird.
I really like Kansas's, actually- it's really legible and shows all state highways clearly, although the background may be a bit too bold for my tastes (EDIT: It looks like for the 11/12 map they made the background white. I take that back then- I liked the old background better).
I like how Oregon has the actual Interstate shields, where it says "Interstate". Also on Oregon's they has all the local streets on the city side of the map. Neat, same with New Mexico.
Texas's are alright, as posted before, they can't fit all the F.M. roads on the map.. I don't like how it shows the same marking for an interstate for Houston Harte, here. I know it's interstate standard, but it ain't an interstate.. Other than that they do a good job of mapping our huge state.
BigMatt
I've always like the Rand McNally maps, but I grew up with those. Maps where freeways aren't blue/green for toll roads look somehow wrong to me. And I like the way they clearly differentiate divided highways (yellow) from 2-lane highways (red). I'm referring to the atlas that is; the maps they print for individual cities/areas are just about the worst I've ever seen. They are on-par with the old school yellow Mapquest maps in terribleness.
I think the easiest to read and clearest maps out there though are by far Google Maps, even if the freeways are the wrong color :)
I liked the old, old school Rand McNally's where freeways were green and tollways were yellow/gold and divided highways were red/maroon.
The problem with Rand McNally is that they show minor highways and non-state roads with the same stroke and color. That means if you have a county road that continues straight after the state road ends, you have no way of knowing on the map because the shields just stop. It's hard to know whether the highway ended or whether McNally just made a cartographic decision to omit a shield for space reasons.
I like Oklahoma's map a lot because it clearly shows the different classes of highway and is reasonably accurate. (It even shows some "secret" things like OK-14 continuing into Alva, which it does even though it's unsigned.) What I don't like is how they have a separate symbol for "county seat" that overrides the population-based symbols, so if you need the population of a county seat you have to find it in the index. Also, it doesn't say how big a city has to be before they start using the shading for urban areas.
Kansas rectifies all the problems I have with the Oklahoma map so it is pretty much my standard for a perfect map. I liked the old background with the relief shading, but KDOT had problems with people not being able to read the map in eastern KS because it was green there and the major highways are red, so they disappeared for people with red-green color blindness.
I had noticed that coloring had disappeared for the physiographic provinces on the Kansas map but hadn't realized that color blindness was part of the rationale. Frankly, I miss it. The Nebraska map used to be colored similarly too.
In general I think the Plains states do very good official state DOT maps. VDOT's map used to be the gold standard, but I am not sure whether that is still the case. I have multiple copies of the TxDOT "saddle blanket" and my main issue with it (NB: I have not looked at any edition of it more recent than, say, 2005) is that expressways and full freeways are shown using the same linestyle, which is different from that used for Interstates. On the other hand, TxDOT had (or at any rate used to have) a good "Here be dragons" label--"Paved road to MEXICO CITY."
I dislike the OK map because of all the mistakes on it. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to ODOT and enclosed a copy of the official map with 64 errors highlighted. Many of them have been on there for DECADES. A few examples, US81/OK19 junction south of Chickasha has never been a "full traffic interchange" as defined on their own legend. Same goes for OK66/US60 west of Vinita, US283/OK44 north of Altus, etc. They also DON'T show interchanges where they exist. Examples include US64/OK15 near Garber, US77/US177 north of Tonkawa, etc. Too many more to mention in one post. Of course I never received a response from ODOT, so I copied the letter to Director Gary Ridley. No response there either. :pan:
p.s. I didn't like the Rand maps because the pastel colors used were hard for me to read. I wish Gousha would make a comeback. :thumbdown:
QuoteI like how Wisconsin's highway map distinguishes expressway-grade stretches of divided highway (no traffic lights, few if any private driveways) from uncontrolled-access divided highways
If there's one weakness with MnDOT's map, it's that they don't do this...
The one thing I dislike about Pennsylvania's is that after the 1977 edition, PennDOT trimmed the number of town insets on the back such as my county's seat.
I have been disappointed with the changes that have been made in the Kentucky and West Virginia maps the past few years. I do not think they are as visually pleasing as they were in the past.
On the other hand, I really like Virginia's map. The basic appearance of it has not changed much over the past several years but it's kept up with the times, with the exception of not marking US 48.
Kentucky's 2011 map is due out by the end of February.
I like Wisconsin's map, except for the fact that in recent years, the DOT has stopped producing them and they are now put out by the Tourism Department. As a result, and I presume to save money and/or pay for producing the maps, they contain advertising on the reverse side and info on tourist attractions. Which is fine and dandy, except to add all the info, they've reduced the size of the city insets, and cut a lot of them off, so a lot of the info that used to be there is now gone.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 21, 2010, 09:54:18 PM
My biggest complaint about the Texas maps is that they don't differentiate between divided and controlled access on non-interstate highways.
That's a huge pet peeve of mine when it comes to state highway maps. Minnesota does this.
Then there's those states like Michigan that attempt to show interchange configurations in the city insets. It's a noble effort to show what might be useful information, but many times, it just clutters the map and you can't tell what's going on anyway. Save it for the center city insets, DOT's.
Nevada has a pretty decent map design overall, and it shows the mountain topography as well as other things without too much clutter for the roads. One thing I don't like about it is that state highways are shown in the same black color as paved roads, even though not all paved roads are state maintained--on other NDOT produced maps, state highways are shown in an orangish-yellow color.
The only think I hate about Louisiana's (and every other map that does Louisiana) is that New Orleans East is cut off on the New Orleans inset.
Quote from: brownpelican on December 23, 2010, 10:15:57 PM
The only think I hate about Louisiana's (and every other map that does Louisiana) is that New Orleans East is cut off on the New Orleans inset.
How far east does NOLA East extend? The NOLA inset on the '07 Louisiana map goes out to I-510.
Unless Ohio's State maps have changed over the past few years, Their use of colors was limited overall and grating on the eyes. I don't have a readily available example to view/use, but let's just say that the Ohio Maps from the 70's & 80's that Rand McNally & AAA put out used far more "softer colors" and were more pleasing to the eyes than what ODOT used.
Quote from: brownpelican on December 23, 2010, 10:15:57 PM
The only think I hate about Louisiana's (and every other map that does Louisiana) is that New Orleans East is cut off on the New Orleans inset.
I got a LA map not too long after Katrina and I remember what irritated me was that the parish names were set in all caps Chancery Cursive. With all the swashes and stuff on the capital letters, Chancery Cursive is one font that just looks awkward set in all caps.
INDOT discontinued printing an official State map at the end of 2020 although it maintains an on-line version on its website. Are there other DOTs that no longer print out and distribute maps?
https://www.in.gov/indot/resources/maps/ (https://www.in.gov/indot/resources/maps/)
South Dakota does a terrible job on the city insets. Maybe one business route is marked on the inset map. There are tons of Business Interstates in South Dakota but they are not on the state DOT map.
Quote from: hockeyjohn on September 26, 2022, 10:40:25 AM
INDOT discontinued printing an official State map at the end of 2020 although it maintains an on-line version on its website. Are there other DOTs that no longer print out and distribute maps?
https://www.in.gov/indot/resources/maps/ (https://www.in.gov/indot/resources/maps/)
I know Washington for sure discontinued their printed maps after 2009. I beleive Rhode Island and Delaware followed shortly after. I think Connecticut may have discontinued theirs around 2017 or so but I am not sure. Was there ever a Hawaii map? I was lucky when I started my map collection back in 2011 almost every state was still printing them except Washington and I got lucky I found a 2007 edition on ebay.
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 21, 2010, 08:46:24 PM
I like how Wisconsin's highway map distinguishes expressway-grade stretches of divided highway (no traffic lights, few if any private driveways) from uncontrolled-access divided highways, and how they appear similar to full-fledged freeways. Why make a big distinction between highways with similar function?
Wisconsin uses really good symbology on their state highway map (https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/travel/road/hwy-maps/state-maps/2019-20-state-hwy-map-front-26x37.5.pdf). My main complaint is Madison's Beltline is shown as regular multilane highway rather than the freeway it is, even if drivers experience far too many unscheduled stops on it.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on December 22, 2010, 04:57:10 PM
I like Wisconsin's map, except for the fact that in recent years, the DOT has stopped producing them and they are now put out by the Tourism Department. As a result, and I presume to save money and/or pay for producing the maps, they contain advertising on the reverse side and info on tourist attractions. Which is fine and dandy, except to add all the info, they've reduced the size of the city insets, and cut a lot of them off, so a lot of the info that used to be there is now gone.
I don't know if that's quite true. The state map online has both sides. (https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/hwy-maps/default.aspx) I've seen private companies duplicate state maps on one side with ads on the reverse specifically given out as tourist maps at state welcome booths along with private locations like hotels and outlet malls. Of course, since WISDOT only has the 2019-20 map available you may be right that any newer maps are private only.
I stopped at the Glenrio NM welcome center on Saturday. The lady was probably the most professional welcome center employee I've ever met (she had the exact distance to Las Vegas NV memorized) but said they were out of "the real big maps" and so instead they were handing out glossy 8½" × 11" copies of the statewide Rand McNally map.
WSDOT no longer publishes Washington's maps, but there still are free paper maps made by Scenic Washington (https://shop.scenic365.com/store/en/home/22-scenic-drives-road-map.html), an unofficial travel booster group. The map lacks insets and other features that an official map would have, which is unfortunate.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2010, 01:51:43 AM
The problem with Rand McNally is that they show minor highways and non-state roads with the same stroke and color. That means if you have a county road that continues straight after the state road ends, you have no way of knowing on the map because the shields just stop. It's hard to know whether the highway ended or whether McNally just made a cartographic decision to omit a shield for space reasons.
AAA maps are the same.
Quote from: hockeyjohn on September 26, 2022, 10:40:25 AM
INDOT discontinued printing an official State map at the end of 2020 although it maintains an on-line version on its website. Are there other DOTs that no longer print out and distribute maps?
Michigan stopped several years ago producing the annual printed and online versions of the Paving the Way trunkline roadwork maps. To be fair, this was after the debut of the mi.gov/drive realtime interactive map. Still, I miss reviewing that publication to see what major roadwork projects were planned for the year.
Michigan still produces a roadmap every year, even if there have been no changes. It clearly shows state trunklines vs. non-state roads, although there is no distinguishing between major and minor surface routes. It also shows designated inter-county routes (with the letter-number combinations). The only thing I don't like about the map is that it changed back to show M- route numbers in diamonds at the same time the physical size of the map was shrunk. The numbers are printed so small that these old fart eyes have trouble reading the route numbers even with a pair of readers.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 25, 2022, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2010, 01:51:43 AM
The problem with Rand McNally is that they show minor highways and non-state roads with the same stroke and color. That means if you have a county road that continues straight after the state road ends, you have no way of knowing on the map because the shields just stop. It's hard to know whether the highway ended or whether McNally just made a cartographic decision to omit a shield for space reasons.
AAA maps are the same.
And that's not really a big problem for navigation. If a state road ends and a county road continues to my destination, then I'm perfectly happy with the county road.
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2022, 10:36:05 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 25, 2022, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 22, 2010, 01:51:43 AM
The problem with Rand McNally is that they show minor highways and non-state roads with the same stroke and color. That means if you have a county road that continues straight after the state road ends, you have no way of knowing on the map because the shields just stop. It's hard to know whether the highway ended or whether McNally just made a cartographic decision to omit a shield for space reasons.
AAA maps are the same.
And that's not really a big problem for navigation. If a state road ends and a county road continues to my destination, then I'm perfectly happy with the county road.
Even 12 years after I posted it, I don't see how that's
not a big deal for navigation. Sure, if you run off the end of the state road, it's whatever. But if you're on an intersecting road and you need to turn onto the ambiguously-marked road, you have no way to tell whether you should be looking for a shield of some sort or some unknown road name that isn't marked on the map.
The assumption that a county road is something you'll be happy with is also something that will vary a lot from state to state. Sure, in Kansas county roads are often just as good as the state roads, and in Oklahoma you'll usually at least get some form of pavement. In the Western states, though, county roads run the gamut from state-highway-like quality to utter deathtrap. In the winter there may be zero maintenance on such roads, and they may be so remote that there is no cell service along them. There's been instances of unlucky travelers getting lost or running into trouble on county roads in the West and dying as a result of it.
Maybe I'm a weenie, but I wouldn't dare set foot on a county road in Nevada (other than Clark 215, of course, which I clinched yesterday) for long-distance travel without asking on AARoads whether it was a good idea or not. And the sort of people who would use a Rand McNally to plan a route usually wouldn't have access to that resource.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 26, 2022, 11:10:40 AM
In the Western states, though, county roads run the gamut from state-highway-like quality to utter deathtrap. In the winter there may be zero maintenance on such roads, and they may be so remote that there is no cell service along them. There's been instances of unlucky travelers getting lost or running into trouble on county roads in the West and dying as a result of it.
In my experience, such roads are not marked as paved in RMN.
Quote from: skluth on October 25, 2022, 04:17:38 PM
My main complaint is Madison's Beltline is shown as regular multilane highway rather than the freeway it is, even if drivers experience far too many unscheduled stops on it.
I still don't understand why they did that. It's the worst cartographic choice I have ever seen and makes absolutely zero sense. After 50 years of being correct, they were like, Nah let's start doing this wrong for no reason.
Quote from: hockeyjohn on September 26, 2022, 10:40:25 AM
INDOT discontinued printing an official State map at the end of 2020 although it maintains an on-line version on its website. Are there other DOTs that no longer print out and distribute maps?
https://www.in.gov/indot/resources/maps/ (https://www.in.gov/indot/resources/maps/)
I hated the fact they reduced the number of insets they used to have to just 1 of Indy.
Quote from: Bruce on October 25, 2022, 10:21:53 PM
WSDOT no longer publishes Washington's maps, but there still are free paper maps made by Scenic Washington (https://shop.scenic365.com/store/en/home/22-scenic-drives-road-map.html), an unofficial travel booster group. The map lacks insets and other features that an official map would have, which is unfortunate.
Thanks for posting the link Bruce. This is one state I have never been able to get a state issued map from.
Bumping this thread for West Virginia. Just picked up a new state map dated April 2022. Over the past two decades, WVDOH appears to have been working away from cartography and moving towards GIS-based mapping, and the new map appears to have completed that transition (with some horrible results). The good news is that the new map is on full-size glossy paper with spectacular artwork, photography and much of the background mapping features show intricate details. The bad news is:
- Oversize route markers, often dropped into the worst places
- Narrow-pen depiction of multi-lane routes
- Text superimposed over roads, again often in the worst places
- No separation between roads running alongside parallel rivers/creeks
- Route markers for short routes literally dropped on top of the entire roadway length
- Several route markers appear over top of adjacent roads (that are not multiplexed)
- Many route markers dropped right on top of important intersections
- Lines depicting roads are even narrower on the urban area insets (it's hard to tell the difference between the blue Interstate routes and the black State Routes)
- Oversize route markers really look goofy on the thin lines for urban area insets
- Too many route markers missing, especially on urban area insets
- Hardly any of the multiplexed routes show both/all of the route markers
- Oh yeah, like that weird placement of that huge WV-210 route marker right smack dab in the middle of Beckley on the main map (none of the other route markers shown inside of any of the urban areas with insets)
With a little more work in the GIS world, the map can be much better quality. However, even then there would still be many sections of the map where a "cartographer's touch" is desperately needed.
^ Sadly, labeling is a persistent weakness in GIS software (or in ArcGIS, at least). I can think of quite a few times (most, actually) where making a map for something at work would require converting the labels to annotation and moving (if not making additional edits) each and every one.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 17, 2023, 06:37:02 PM
Bumping this thread for West Virginia. Just picked up a new state map dated April 2022. Over the past two decades, WVDOH appears to have been working away from cartography and moving towards GIS-based mapping, and the new map appears to have completed that transition (with some horrible results). The good news is that the new map is on full-size glossy paper with spectacular artwork, photography and much of the background mapping features show intricate details. The bad news is:
- Oversize route markers, often dropped into the worst places
- Narrow-pen depiction of multi-lane routes
- Text superimposed over roads, again often in the worst places
- No separation between roads running alongside parallel rivers/creeks
- Route markers for short routes literally dropped on top of the entire roadway length
- Several route markers appear over top of adjacent roads (that are not multiplexed)
- Many route markers dropped right on top of important intersections
- Lines depicting roads are even narrower on the urban area insets (it's hard to tell the difference between the blue Interstate routes and the black State Routes)
- Oversize route markers really look goofy on the thin lines for urban area insets
- Too many route markers missing, especially on urban area insets
- Hardly any of the multiplexed routes show both/all of the route markers
- Oh yeah, like that weird placement of that huge WV-210 route marker right smack dab in the middle of Beckley on the main map (none of the other route markers shown inside of any of the urban areas with insets)
With a little more work in the GIS world, the map can be much better quality. However, even then there would still be many sections of the map where a "cartographer's touch" is desperately needed.
I didn't realize there was a 2022 edition out. The most recent I've seen and that is available online is 2019.
I think WVDOH moved the state map to being GIS-driven with the 2008-2009 issue although it was pretty significantly re-engineered with the 2019 issue. County maps were still traditional cartography through 2014 before being transitioned. Both moves to GIS have been a downgrade. On the county route side, the biggest problem has been they no longer show Forest Service roads which are a critical part of the road network in many counties.
On some versions of the state map, it's been hard to tell which roads are WV routes versus county routes. They also don't distinguish between paved and unpaved roads, with some roads being shown (like CR 25 in New River Gorge) that are flat out impassible without a high clearance 4x4.
I'm not a fan of the glossy paper WVDOH moved to with the 2019 issue. It doesn't hold up well to repeated folding and unfolding.
Quote from: Bitmapped on January 18, 2023, 09:44:28 AM
I think WVDOH moved the state map to being GIS-driven with the 2008-2009 issue although it was pretty significantly re-engineered with the 2019 issue. County maps were still traditional cartography through 2014 before being transitioned. Both moves to GIS have been a downgrade. On the county route side, the biggest problem has been they no longer show Forest Service roads which are a critical part of the road network in many counties.
I was trying to find my most recent copy (couldn't), but came across 2006-07 version. That one is almost entirely cartography, but it appears that the waterways and a few other underlying graphics have been pulled from GIS data. The urban area insets appear to be entirely GIS-driven.