Thanks to the NWS.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/eax/events/feb012011/CentralPlainsSnowfall20110201.png
Looks like they are using the same source data as Google (or using Google).
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.msg88883#msg88883
(http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.88445,-94.130859&spn=6.372267,21.09375&z=7)
Yeah, it's Google's fault. They have the Google symbol in the bottom left of the image.
Reminds me of how a lot of local businesses around here use the Interstate shield as just a generic shield for any numbered highway. So when I look at these maps, the Valley appears to have Interstates 101, 134, 170, 2, 27 and 118.
It was enough for this road geek to laugh.
Apparently, Google is hilarious that way!
Google always makes errors.
I wonder if they will accidently add the traffic
Interestingly, if you use driving directions or Street View, it's correctly identified as U.S. 136, but somehow they got the wrong shield.
Quote from: Central Avenue on February 03, 2011, 04:16:19 PM
Interestingly, if you use driving directions or Street View, it's correctly identified as U.S. 136, but somehow they got the wrong shield.
Ah, the infamous Interstate 136, a spur route off the nonexistant I-36! I've seen that a lot on Google Maps.
Quote from: Quillz on February 02, 2011, 05:16:07 PM
Reminds me of how a lot of local businesses around here use the Interstate shield as just a generic shield for any numbered highway. So when I look at these maps, the Valley appears to have Interstates 101, 134, 170, 2, 27 and 118.
I've seen it here in the Phoenix area, too, so we appear to have Interstates 101, 202, 51 and 60.
Another one I've seen is using US shields for Interstate highways, so in Phoenix, it appears we have US 10 and US 17. I've even seen businesses using hybrid US/Interstate shields to mark numbered highways in their advertising, both in Arizona and in southern California. (It's probably universal.) Let's face it, the owner of Feebo Widgets and Gizaditches, Inc. is probably not a road geek, and for the most part, neither are the people working at the advertising agency he uses. Both businesses are out to satisfy the bean counters (and perhaps the stock holders); they're not going to pay attention to the advertising having the "right" kind of shield.
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=40.20405,-94.493408&spn=4.924668,13.392334&z=7
Somehow US-136 got changed to I-136 on Google Maps. I wonder how something like that happens?
Google put in the new US-59 bypass of Ottawa, KS, but then also left markings for US-59 through town even though it's been turned over to the city/county and is no longer signed. http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=38.631891,-95.235329&spn=0.15743,0.41851&z=12 Same with K-18 just east of Ogden, KS, they overlayed the new four-lane highway but then left the old one on the map as well. http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=39.115478,-96.692905&spn=0.039091,0.104628&z=14
Just seems curious to me. I guess the last two may just be someone overlooking removing the old roads, but the I-136 thing threw me for a loop when I saw it tonight.
There's a new US Route too...
This one's even more egregious than the US4xx series:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.18904,-95.764389&z=12
Google has sometimes cosigned now Interstate 136 in Illinois with US 53. They confused FAP53 which is the federal aid primary designation with US 53. I wonder if that or perhaps a nearby county road could be causing the Kansas problem
I-238 suddenly feels momentarily justified!
Google asks to hear about errors. I sent in some . They had dleted traffic from some full acess routes inclding US 67 Jacksonville Bypass. Nothing was corrected
Maybe someone needs to tell them they need to add traffic to Interstate 136
Quote from: yakra on February 23, 2011, 07:23:09 PM
There's a new US Route too...
This one's even more egregious than the US4xx series:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.18904,-95.764389&z=12
That one is probably related to the "County Road 3300" which seems to line up with the north/south alignment line of US 75 in the area. Doesn't excuse the error, though...