The 2012 Rand McNally is now out and after a somewhat indepth comparison with the 2011 version I found the following modifications:
- Mississippi - MS 67 on the main state page is now shown as four-lane for its entire length (was a grey line in the 2011 edition)
- Missouri - I-64 is now shown as a freeway all the way to I-70
- Missouri - US 36 around the town of Chillicothe is shown in its proper alignment (the 2011 edition showed the alignment further south and as a freeway)
I'm sure there are a few more miniscule changes here and there, but that is all I could find after going page by page. And on the main U.S. map page, they did recolor the topology and reduce the size of the shields. Other than that, that's it.
And for the big kicker with the 2012 edition, none of the errors discussed in the 2011 thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2744.0) were corrected!! So according to the 2012 Rand, I-520 still does not connect with I-20 on the South Carolina side, I-376 is not fully shown along PA 60 (and I-279 still exists from downtown to I-79), I-170 still exists in the Baltimore inset, the ICC is still shown as under construction, etc., etc...
Now I know that some projects, like the ICC, just recently opened within the past few months, but this is suppose to be a 2012 atlas, it should be shown as complete on this edition, not still under construction. Someone in their research department (if one still exists) should have done their homework on projects like that and made sure that if it was fully known as to the approximate date of the road opening that it would be shown as complete on their newer edition. I used to do this as a living so I know what it takes to get the research done on things like this. And even though they probably have no road enthusiasts like us working for them, one would think that there would be a little common sense involved when comparing items under construction in last years edition versus the edition you are working on the get out and seeing what has changed.
It seems to me that the items they did fix are only cosmetic. And as far as each of the state's population information, the only population they updated was for the state-wide population. Um, Rand McNally, wouldn't you think that if the entire state had a population change that the largest city in that state would also have a population change??? Really...
And now they have QR codes on every page so you can scan with your iPhone (or whatever) for free travel information, videos and more. I'm sure that the powers-that-be put forth more effort into this aspect of the map than they did for the actual update of the contents within the pages. They made sure that is on each page but they couldn't do something like update the little pictures they have inserted on each state as well? Come on now. Really??
In short, I am not pleased with this year's atlas at all. It's basically a carbon-copy of the 2011 edition with a few cosmetic changes, that's all. In fact, I plan on doing something I've never done with a road atlas until now; I am going to be returning it to Wal-Mart for a refund on Monday. With so few updates and still the same errors as last year, it's pointless to even make the purchase, unless of course you want to use the QR code functionality.
Since it seems that they have given up in producing a well rounded, up-to-date road atlas, perhaps it's time for Rand McNally to go way of many states in only producing a new road atlas every two years. Or perhaps it's time for them to give up all together and sell the company to its competitor (who seem to be gobbling up the rest of the mapping companies anyway).
You know, I use to enjoy the anticipation of buying a new Rand McNally (in late September/early October) and seeing all the changes and updates. Those days are forever gone. Now it comes out way too early (early April) and there are really no changes or updates to discover. Nope, only error after error after error. It's a real shame. Thanks a lot, Rand, thanks a lot...
If you do happen to get a 2012 Rand and see anything of interest (or something I probably missed in seeing), post it here.
I only buy road atlases about every 5 years or so, when actual changes are likely to be reflected.
Quote from: flaroads on April 09, 2011, 06:34:45 PM
And for the big kicker with the 2012 edition, none of the errors discussed in the 2011 thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2744.0) were corrected!! So according to the 2012 Rand, I-520 still does not connect with I-20 on the South Carolina side, I-376 is not fully shown along PA 60 (and I-279 still exists from downtown to I-79), I-170 still exists in the Baltimore inset, the ICC is still shown as under construction, etc., etc...
Now I know that some projects, like the ICC, just recently opened within the past few months, but this is suppose to be a 2012 atlas, it should be shown as complete on this edition, not still under construction. Someone in their research department (if one still exists) should have done their homework on projects like that and made sure that if it was fully known as to the approximate date of the road opening that it would be shown as complete on their newer edition. I used to do this as a living so I know what it takes to get the research done on things like this. And even though they probably have no road enthusiasts like us working for them, one would think that there would be a little common sense involved when comparing items under construction in last years edition versus the edition you are working on the get out and seeing what has changed.
When I last attended a Roadmap Collectors Association meet, about ten years ago, there was a Rand McNally employee, showing upcoming RMC maps and getting feedback from the attendees and other sellers on the cartography and other issues. This person also noted that RMC was aware of "us" on MTR (usenet/google groups) using their maps on our websites and discussing their product back at that time.
Quote from: flaroads on April 09, 2011, 06:34:45 PM
Since it seems that they have given up in producing a well rounded, up-to-date road atlas, perhaps it's time for Rand McNally to go way of many states in only producing a new road atlas every two years. Or perhaps it's time for them to give up all together and sell the company to its competitor (who seem to be gobbling up the rest of the mapping companies anyway).
You know, I use to enjoy the anticipation of buying a new Rand McNally (in late September/early October) and seeing all the changes and updates. Those days are forever gone. Now it comes out way too early (early April) and there are really no changes or updates to discover. Nope, only error after error after error. It's a real shame. Thanks a lot, Rand, thanks a lot...
With the changes at Rand McNally in the years since, I obviously can't speak to their staffing and work involved nowadays. As you say, the product speaks for itself, and handing out "garbage" won't help them now, or in the future.
WalMart? That's funny. I went to WalMart in Coos Bay OR on Friday the 8th of April and not only were there no 2012 R-M atlases, there were none of any type to be had.
However I did find Highway 61 Revisited...LOL!
Rick
Probably won't be buying this then.
They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 10, 2011, 12:35:44 AM
Probably won't be buying this then.
They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?
Indeed. Hopefully I did not turn anyone off yesterday with my rant but when I saw that they had pretty much not done any updates, especially with certain road openings (I-520) and highway number changes (PA 60 and south portion of I-279 to I-376,), it absolutely floored me. I was expecting at least those two changes to have taken affect. And I am sure that Rand had some downsizing during the initial economic turmoil, but they should still have at least had a few people (at most) working in their research department! They could have at least gone to a 5 to 10 changes per page (and 5 to 10 changes per inset) format (thinking of another map company that currently does that). I don't know, I guess with more and more GPS's in vehicles and more and more people with intelligent phones that can access the internet that the need for the paper road atlas has drastically declined. I will not be surprised if Rand decides to sell the company to the highest bidder in the next few years to leave just one major mapping company on the market. Just a hunch.
I honestly never thought that an updated paper map could possibly be worse than Google, but now I know better! :wow:
There was a time (long ago) when the new RMcN atlas was the way you found out about new highways outside your state.
Quote from: deanej on April 10, 2011, 09:42:08 AM
I honestly never thought that an updated paper map could possibly be worse than Google, but now I know better!
This exemplifies a problem which has taken root in many things, not just cartography. Namely, that companies have realized that expending the effort to actually get it right isn't worth it - customers will tolerate a product not being perfect so long as it's "good enough". Therefore, top notch quality actually yields a lower profit than merely decent quality - the extra money spent achieving top notch will not be made back in extra sales. In our modern fast-paced society, people care more about getting things done quickly than about getting them done right.
Of course, it also doesn't help that technology is pushing your product into obsolescence. That really breeds an attitude of "just get it done and send it to the press, don't fuss over it too much". And yeah, I'll bet the people who were otherwise supposed to be spending time researching changes and updating the map were instructed to develop QR codes instead. Because after all, we live in a world of gimmicks.
I bought one every year from 1997 to 2010 and always looked forward to the new one. Each year's travels are highlighted in the appropriate year's atlas. But I skipped the 2011 after seeing it out so early and flipping through and noticing so many errors. It looks like they won't be winning me back with the 2012.
I wonder if they've just thrown in the towel on trying to stay relevant in the era of online maps and GPS in so many cars. Perhaps they feel the best business decision is to ride the brand recognition and put out a lousy product until enough people realize it's no longer what it once was. I hope not, since I still really enjoy having an atlas to flip through while traveling or just sitting at home thinking about how I might make my next trip somewhere a little more interesting.
Maybe this is a topic for its own thread (and apologies if one already exists that I haven't seen), but...does anyone have suggestions on the best print atlas out there today? I'm hoping to retire my 2010 RMcN before doing any summer travel.
Quote from: Jim on April 10, 2011, 02:55:00 PM
Maybe this is a topic for its own thread (and apologies if one already exists that I haven't seen), but...does anyone have suggestions on the best print atlas out there today? I'm hoping to retire my 2010 RMcN before doing any summer travel.
Geonova used to make a great atlas, but they were purchased and shut down a year or two ago. There is no suitable replacement for what they put out or what Rand used to be.
Probably the best atlas otherwise is the atlas published by Canadian MapArt (http://www.mapart.com/). They have many new projects or proposed routes covered, and seem to actually care to update things, noting the projected opening dates on roads shown as under construction. The most recent shown on their web site is from 2009 however. The 2008 I've looked through was well done for what its worth.
I should have remembered about the MapArt atlas, but when it's out of sight, it's out of mind...may have to pull that atlas back out...
Rand McNally needs to figure out that many of us use their atlases as geographical chronicles, and refer back to older versions regularly. In this day and age of computers and the internet, it should be even easier for them to keep it up to date. The more changes annually, the more likely I am to purchase it annually.
It's sad to the quality decline over time this.
They also have erred in the other direction. I once blew an interview in NJ in the late 80s because Rand McNally had said I-78 on the southside of Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton was finished when it was far from it.
More recently, the 2011 atlas showed the 840 section between TN 100 and TN 46 being complete when it wasn't opened until October.
EDIT:
In the old Atlases (circa '60s, '70s, '80s), they would place as estimated time that the road would be open like Oct. 1966 or Fall 1971.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 10, 2011, 12:35:44 AM
Probably won't be buying this then.
They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?
Quote from: flaroads on April 09, 2011, 06:34:45 PM
You know, I use to enjoy the anticipation of buying a new Rand McNally (in late September/early October) and seeing all the changes and updates. Those days are forever gone. Now it comes out way too early (early April) and there are really no changes or updates to discover. Nope, only error after error after error. It's a real shame. Thanks a lot, Rand, thanks a lot...
Two points... First, "post-dated releases" are not an uncommon phenomenon. Cars, sports video games, magazines/comic books, etc. all typically come out the year (or in the case of magazines, a month or two) before the title/model year/etc says they will.
Secondly, provided that they still release the atlas every 12 months, the change in release date shouldn't have any effect on the map's accuracy. Last year, you might expect some errors (although introducing
new errors like the I-170 shield is inexcusable) since they rushed it out in about 7 months to switch to the April date, but this year that shouldn't be an issue.
This being said, I totally agree that RMcN seems to have gone downhill (haven't seen the 2012 version yet). But releasing it in April isn't the reason for that.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 10, 2011, 02:52:41 PM
Of course, it also doesn't help that technology is pushing your product into obsolescence.
Too bad online maps aren't any better.
I'm still two 2010 atlases and am still using a 2009 for county counting (it's a pain to update that). I updated from 2008 to 2010 for roads (I highlight them), but am not doing that for next year (takes too long, and if the map isn't seriously updated, what's the point?).
Plus, I am not a fan of how the new exit numbers are indicated, too bulky in my view. The small blank triangle/arrow with the number suffices for me.
I always liked RM, but they're not much better than the other brands now.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 10, 2011, 02:52:41 PM
This exemplifies a problem which has taken root in many things, not just cartography. Namely, that companies have realized that expending the effort to actually get it right isn't worth it - customers will tolerate a product not being perfect so long as it's "good enough".
Bingo. Which, since I need a new one anyway, makes me think about rounding up a cut rate copy of the 2011.
Quote from: flaroads on April 09, 2011, 06:34:45 PM
In short, I am not pleased with this year's atlas at all. It's basically a carbon-copy of the 2011 edition with a few cosmetic changes, that's all. In fact, I plan on doing something I've never done with a road atlas until now; I am going to be returning it to Wal-Mart for a refund on Monday. With so few updates and still the same errors as last year, it's pointless to even make the purchase, unless of course you want to use the QR code functionality.
Yeah, but I bet you a dollar the list of Wal-Marts in there is up to date.
I might stop by my local AAA and request some updated maps. I wonder if they do a decent job at getting new highways correct.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 10, 2011, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 10, 2011, 12:35:44 AM
Probably won't be buying this then.
They also need to get their damned act together and release the atlases in the same year they're dated. Otherwise why not go ahead and release the 2015 map next month?
Two points... First, "post-dated releases" are not an uncommon phenomenon. Cars, sports video games, magazines/comic books, etc. all typically come out the year (or in the case of magazines, a month or two) before the title/model year/etc says they will.
If everyone put broken glass in with their products, would that make it OK for Rand McNally to do so too? I'm not blaming that for the errors, I'm blaming them in taking part in the same idiocy that car makers have a fetish for.
Quote from: Quillz on April 12, 2011, 05:17:53 AM
I might stop by my local AAA and request some updated maps. I wonder if they do a decent job at getting new highways correct.
I had worked for AAA during my summer breaks from college 20-mumble years ago. IIRC, it was the local AAA office's responsibility to regularly report to HQ about road changes & additions in their local areas so they may be changed in the next edition of the map.
As mentioned in other conversations, AAA makes their own National, Regional and State maps. They also make maps for their larger, more popular cities in the U.S. Smaller town maps may or may not be made by AAA. As far as I remember, I had never seen AAA offer any RM-made maps with the AAA seal on them.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 10, 2011, 02:52:41 PM
This exemplifies a problem which has taken root in many things, not just cartography. Namely, that companies have realized that expending the effort to actually get it right isn't worth it - customers will tolerate a product not being perfect so long as it's "good enough". Therefore, top notch quality actually yields a lower profit than merely decent quality - the extra money spent achieving top notch will not be made back in extra sales. In our modern fast-paced society, people care more about getting things done quickly than about getting them done right.
This.
By now I would expect that Rand Mac has outsourced most of it's operation to other countries. The most current one in my possession says it was printed in Peru. The cartography is probably done in an Indian sweat shop where they have no reason to care about the accuracy. But more over, it's the same mentality of corner cutting to increase profit that pervades corporate America. Build it cheap so it breaks and they have to buy another one. Even if it's something like an atlas that has built-in obsolescence regardless of quality, just churn out the cheapest piece of shit you can so Wally World can retail it for 5 bucks.
I've noticed the latest editions of the Thomas Guide now advertising having "streets that MapQuest/Google Maps don't have."
But I looked into it a bit deeper and found out that, in order to retain copyright, they actually are putting fake roads into their maps. This is most noticeable on maps that show the outskirts of the SF Valley, where I have noticed several "fire roads" or paths which indicate unpaved trails that don't actually exist.
The point is that I think paper maps are really hurting from digital maps and thus the only way to really fight back is to claim paper maps are more accurate.
Quote from: Quillz on April 12, 2011, 03:30:37 PM
I've noticed the latest editions of the Thomas Guide now advertising having "streets that MapQuest/Google Maps don't have."
... they actually are putting fake roads into their maps.
wow. their claim is technically true, but ... wow, what balls.
This sort of so-called "copyright trap" has been going on for a long time, and is often confused with bad data (I can't say which one this is). Have you checked that every real street they have is also on MapQuest/Google Maps, or are you making an assumption?
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2011, 04:15:18 PM
This sort of so-called "copyright trap" has been going on for a long time, and is often confused with bad data (I can't say which one this is). Have you checked that every real street they have is also on MapQuest/Google Maps, or are you making an assumption?
From the areas I've looked at, all the "real" streets appear to be the same. I couldn't find any noticeable difference between the two, except Google Maps seems to incorrectly be assigning street names to some segments that shouldn't have different names.
The Thomas Guide generally uses long dashed lines to indicated unpaved roads and short dashed lines to indicate a walking trail. It's usually with those two I'll notice lots of curves and mass quantities of routes that simply don't appear to be there. It's one of those weird things where maybe if you think there is supposed to be a trail there, there is (like a placebo effect). Considering it doesn't really affect the primary streets, it doesn't bother me, but it does seem to compromise accuracy for copyright purposes.
So why are you so sure that it's a copyright trap rather than bad data?
They've been there for a rather long time now. It could be bad data but it seems that if it was, it would have been fixed by now. Not to mention I have a copy of a 1987 Thomas Guide and the trails in question seem to have changed a bit.
Either way, it's far too insignificant to matter. On the subject of data errors, though, I think the issues I've seen with Google Maps are exactly that, so they'll probably get fixed eventually.
The "fake roads copyright trap" reminds me of alleged Cold War era Soviet maps that had inaccurate positions of cities to confuse potential enemies. (i.e. "us")
Even if this was true, it's not like the USAF didn't know where Moscow was. :sombrero:
Quote from: mightyace on April 12, 2011, 07:43:14 PM
Even if this was true, it's not like the USAF didn't know where Moscow was. :sombrero:
But you couldn't get an accurate street map of Moscow (in Moscow) until around 1990.
ICBMs don't need accurate street maps ;)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 13, 2011, 12:44:23 PM
ICBMs don't need accurate street maps ;)
Neither do bombers. ;-)
/Like the Kremlin is so hard to miss in Moscow.
Quote from: Brandon on April 13, 2011, 01:44:28 PM
/Like the Kremlin is so hard to miss in Moscow.
The Chinese embassy in Belgrade, OTOH . . .
Is it me or are atlases coming out earlier in the preceding year? We are barely a third of the way through 2011 and next year's maps are already out :ded:
I'm quite saddened at what Thomas Guides have become, especially all the ones in 2011 or later.
Quote from: rschen7754 on April 13, 2011, 10:58:53 PM
I'm quite saddened at what Thomas Guides have become, especially all the ones in 2011 or later.
Agreed. I have a ratty old 1998 one that details LA and Ventura Counties and I still love looking at it because I felt it had a quality to it that is not present in more recent editions. (Of course, there has also been relatively few street changes, too, so I don't really need a much newer edition.)
I haven't gotten one in over a decade...is the AAA road atlas any better?
Quote from: exit322 on April 14, 2011, 09:07:13 AM
I haven't gotten one in over a decade...is the AAA road atlas any better?
It depends... I have a 2005 AAA Travel "North America Deluxe Road Atlas" that was farmed out to Universal Map. I also have another AAA (forget the year, but within the last 10 years) that pretty much uses all of it's state fold-out maps verbatim, and puts them as one map side per page, resulting in "shrunken" maps compared to the original sizes of the fold-outs.
Great: Another new atlas to mark up!
I find that I-170 thing quite hilarious! Perhaps they're still in wishful thinking mode that I-70 will somehow go beyond that Park & Ride and fully enter the city? (even though environmentalists smartly prevented that from ever happening)
Quote from: thenetwork on April 14, 2011, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: exit322 on April 14, 2011, 09:07:13 AM
I haven't gotten one in over a decade...is the AAA road atlas any better?
It depends... I have a 2005 AAA Travel "North America Deluxe Road Atlas" that was farmed out to Universal Map. I also have another AAA (forget the year, but within the last 10 years) that pretty much uses all of it's state fold-out maps verbatim, and puts them as one map side per page, resulting in "shrunken" maps compared to the original sizes of the fold-outs.
So basically...probably not. That's too bad.
Quote from: Henry on April 14, 2011, 10:51:45 AM
(even though environmentalists smartly prevented that from ever happening)
on some level it may make sense to quarantine Baltimore from civilization, by not building I-83 and I-70 through the city, but I don't think "environmentalism" is the word you're looking for.
Quote from: NE2 on April 12, 2011, 05:56:55 PM
So why are you so sure that it's a copyright trap rather than bad data?
Because in the 2009 Portland Thomas Guide (the second year that RMN rammed their shitty symbology down our throats), suddenly tons of new streets appeared in Forest Park south of Germantown Road. They weren't in previous editions (and those had the fault of not extending Leif Erikson Dr to Germantown Rd like it's supposed to be), and they aren't in the 2010/32nd Edition. Having biked Leif Erikson Dr and been on Germantown Rd a number of times, this glut of new streets doesn't exist.
the one complaint I have against recent RMNs is that it is now next to impossible to tell the difference between minor paved roads and dirt roads. before, they used to have one be a distinct solid gray line and the other be a distinct pair of light gray lines. now, both are, to within an order of precision raised by their printing processes, an indistinct thick light gray line.
and that is a severe loss, because I will not hesitate to take light-gray paved roads, but I have learned that dirt roads could be anything from a graded 60mph level route to a horrific adventure that might leave me stranded.
I'm one of those who used to buy a road atlas every year...used to be Rand McNally, then the National Geographic road atlases for the few years they were being published - I'm not sure who created their maps (they seemed to start off quite similar to RMcN), but it's the same maps that are now in the Michelin atlases...I looked and was surprised to see the last one I bought was 2007.
Ever since the RMcN switched to their current style (1980s?) I feel like it's "soft"...not sure what word I want to use. Coastlines, city boundaries, even road lines seem much more approximate than in their older style. I think the Michelin atlases are an improvement, and I like that they're arranged geographically rather than by state, as the scale remains consistent.
The AAA atlases are in the middle for me. However (a little off topic) I think the California State Automobile Association (i.e. Northern California's AAA) fold-out road maps had some of the best design/layout of anything I had seen.
Quote from: DTComposer on April 15, 2011, 12:50:58 AM
then the National Geographic road atlases for the few years they were being published - I'm not sure who created their maps (they seemed to start off quite similar to RMcN)
GeoSystems Global Corporation, now known as MapQuest.com, Inc.
I -376 has been extended and I-279 truncated to I-376's former end. It has been that way a while yet the new Rand McNally atlases do not show it! What is up with this? Wicopedia shows it in its write up and I believe it is official in DC with FHWA, so then all maps should show it.
We already have a thread for the 2012 Rand McNally...
Just a quick update: I am currently awaiting a response from Rand about why their 2012 atlas is almost a carbon copy of the 2011 atlas. Their initial response to my email was this:
Hello,
Can you please be a little more specific?
Best regards,
Consumer Affairs Rand McNally
I initially thought that this was an automated response, but I highly doubt it...so I decided to send them the original email I concocted but saved. It should be interesting on how they respond to that...
For those of you on Facebook, they posted a link on their page (http://www.facebook.com/randmcnally) about the road atlas celebrating its 88th birthday with the 2012 release. Let them hear about these errors there, and maybe someone will respond.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 18, 2011, 12:16:49 PM
I -376 has been extended and I-279 truncated to I-376's former end. It has been that way a while yet the new Rand McNally atlases do not show it! What is up with this? Wicopedia shows it in its write up and I believe it is official in DC with FHWA, so then all maps should show it.
It's of course marked on the PennDOT map, just order (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBOS.nsf/OfficeServicesHomePage?OpenFrameSet&Frame=main&src=infoCustServForm?OpenForm) that one.
I actually got a response, and it looks like 376 won't be included until the 2013 edition. So my advice is, whatever other errors you find in the 2012, let them know via Facebook.
Quote from: PAHighways on April 20, 2011, 01:24:11 PM
It's of course marked on the PennDOT map, just order (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdBOS.nsf/OfficeServicesHomePage?OpenFrameSet&Frame=main&src=infoCustServForm?OpenForm) that one.
Thanks for the link. I ordered mine and took less than a minute.
The 2012 R McN was at the Walmart in the town where I work when I stopped there at lunch today. One new thing I noticed is that the Ashland, Ky. area is now included in the Huntington, WV inset and the inset is associated with the WV page, not the KY page.
For years, the atlas has indicated that the OH 7 bypass of Chesapeake is completed, when such is not the case at all. That error is still in evidence in the current atlas.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 01, 2011, 01:16:10 PM
The 2012 R McN was at the Walmart in the town where I work when I stopped there at lunch today. One new thing I noticed is that the Ashland, Ky. area is now included in the Huntington, WV inset and the inset is associated with the WV page, not the KY page.
They moved Ashland to Huntington's inset by 2011's edition.
I've found 2 more errors somewhat similar to the notorious I-170 shield that are in both the 2011 and 2012 editions, but were correct in the 2010 edition.
- In Washington, there is an SR 603 shield between Napavine and Winlock. SR 603 was decommissioned in 1992. (Google maps has the same error. The road is still named "Highway 603" for street addresses, but is county maintained.)
- In the 2010 edition on the Georgia main map (not the Atlanta inset), there is an I-285 shield inside the beltway, but with an arrow pointing to the correct highway. In 2011/12, the shield is shifted slightly to the left so that it is actually on I-75/85 instead of floating to the side of it, and the arrow has disappeared.
This, combined with several of the comments here, makes me wonder....
Has anyone actually confirmed that there were
any changes to the
maps between the 2011 and 2012 editions?
Edit: Apologies for my idiocy and not re-reading the first post in this thread. Good to know they found something to update while they were busy not fixing these errors.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 05, 2011, 10:52:26 PM
Has anyone actually confirmed that there were any changes to the maps between the 2011 and 2012 editions?
yes. OR-380 has two shields - one on the actual 380 (between Prineville and Paulina), and one past the official end of the state route. They were not present on the 2011 map.
this is highly deceptive, actually, because (if one believes that all Oregon state routes are paved, and I do), an attempt to follow "380" from Prineville to Burns will lead you to a dirt road. I had to backtrack 83 miles to Prineville because it was raining and the road was turning to mud!
also, speaking of dirt roads, the 2012 RMN uses a new style of line to mark its dirt roads which is
virtually impossible to differentiate from the gray line of the paved roads of lowest importance. This, in my view, is a critical blunder and renders the map essentially unusable.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2011, 11:22:26 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 05, 2011, 10:52:26 PM
Has anyone actually confirmed that there were any changes to the maps between the 2011 and 2012 editions?
yes. OR-380 has two shields - one on the actual 380 (between Prineville and Paulina), and one past the official end of the state route. They were not present on the 2011 map.
this is highly deceptive, actually, because (if one believes that all Oregon state routes are paved, and I do), an attempt to follow "380" from Prineville to Burns will lead you to a dirt road. I had to backtrack 83 miles to Prineville because it was raining and the road was turning to mud!
I don't know about the road that cuts down to Burns, but the road that runs from Paulina to US 395 just north of Seneca is paved the entire way.
As for 380; that means there are more 380 shields in the RMcN atlas (2) than there are on the actual highway (1), as of last summer, at least.
There are 2 unpaved Oregon state routes: OR 27 south of Prineville Reservoir, and the northern 5 miles of OR 413 to Cornucopia, although that highway isn't signed yet.
Quote from: xonhulu on June 06, 2011, 12:35:42 AM
I don't know about the road that cuts down to Burns, but the road that runs from Paulina to US 395 just north of Seneca is paved the entire way.
can you give me the exact alignment of this? (names like "forest 41", etc, which I can follow on google maps?) I must've taken a wrong turn somewhere.
I programmed the GPS to "Burns" when I was in Paulina, and followed its route. It never flashed a warning of "road is dirt" so I proceeded bravely.
380 turns into Paulina Suplee Road when it ends in the town of Paulina. Then I turned off onto the Weberg Road, which is County Hwy 69. Then, at National Forest Development Road 41, the county road was marked "private" and turned to dirt. Forest 41 was paved, so I turned onto that. It dirted out within about a mile.
Looking at google maps, it appears the dirt section is brief - maybe only about 3 miles to the junction with Forest 43, but I had no idea about that (already the GPS had lied to me - and RMN did show that road as paved, unless I had mistaken one anonymous little grey line on the map with another).
It was just past sunset and the weather was getting shittier and shittier so I just turned around and hightailed it back to Prineville as opposed to risking getting stuck in the mud at night.
QuoteAs for 380; that means there are more 380 shields in the RMcN atlas (2) than there are on the actual highway (1), as of last summer, at least.
correct. I just saw one, at that T-junction, but I forget with which road. I didn't even notice the shield on the way out - just, well after dark, on the way in. I just remember it's just south of the outskirts of Prineville.
QuoteThere are 2 unpaved Oregon state routes: OR 27 south of Prineville Reservoir, and the northern 5 miles of OR 413 to Cornucopia, although that highway isn't signed yet.
good to know. and 380 is not one of them. though 27 is generally in the right area!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on June 06, 2011, 12:35:42 AM
I don't know about the road that cuts down to Burns, but the road that runs from Paulina to US 395 just north of Seneca is paved the entire way.
can you give me the exact alignment of this? (names like "forest 41", etc, which I can follow on google maps?) I must've taken a wrong turn somewhere.
I programmed the GPS to "Burns" when I was in Paulina, and followed its route. It never flashed a warning of "road is dirt" so I proceeded bravely.
380 turns into Paulina Suplee Road when it ends in the town of Paulina. Then I turned off onto the Weberg Road, which is County Hwy 69. Then, at National Forest Development Road 41, the county road was marked "private" and turned to dirt. Forest 41 was paved, so I turned onto that. It dirted out within about a mile.
Weberg Rd is where you went astray. Past that point, the main road becomes what Google Maps calls "Izee Hwy," although it's also labeled as "Izee County Line Rd" and "Co. Hwy 67." Then it seems to change to "Izee Ranch to County Line Rd" and "Co. Hwy 63." On the east end, they label it "Izee Paulina Ln."
My De Lorme atlas calls it Paulina Suplee Hwy to the jct with Weberg Rd, then Izee Ranch to County Line Rd (until the jct with the S. Fork John Day Rd), followed by Izee Paulina Ln to Izee, and finally Izee Rd to Bush Ranch Rd.
I think at every junction this route is the through route. I didn't have any trouble following it, but I went east-to-west both times I've driven it.
Cool drive, by the way. I was impressed by the variety of landscapes and the general isolation. US 26 is probably slightly more scenic, but this is definitely an interesting alternative.
Quote
correct. I just saw one, at that T-junction, but I forget with which road. I didn't even notice the shield on the way out - just, well after dark, on the way in. I just remember it's just south of the outskirts of Prineville.
It's called Juniper Canyon Rd, I think.
Quote
good to know. and 380 is not one of them. though 27 is generally in the right area!
One wonders why OR 27 even exists, with the much superior Millican Rd just a few miles west. I guess it's just one of those interesting artifacts of the early years of the state highway system.
Quote from: xonhulu on June 06, 2011, 08:41:53 PM
Weberg Rd is where you went astray. Past that point, the main road becomes what Google Maps calls "Izee Hwy," although it's also labeled as "Izee County Line Rd" and "Co. Hwy 67." Then it seems to change to "Izee Ranch to County Line Rd" and "Co. Hwy 63." On the east end, they label it "Izee Paulina Ln."
yep, the GPS told me to turn south on Weberg Road. I did not have a good understanding of which named road, per the GPS, matched up with which gray line on the RMN map - and, in fact, to this day I still cannot tell which gray lines on RMN represent dirt and which are paved. (Again, a horrific strategic decision by RMN. Labeling both arterials and full expressways as "orange line" is irritating, but at worst an inconvenience - making both dirt and paved roads nearly indistinguishable gray lines borders on legally actionable.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2011, 09:05:57 PM
yep, the GPS told me to turn south on Weberg Road. I did not have a good understanding of which named road, per the GPS, matched up with which gray line on the RMN map - and, in fact, to this day I still cannot tell which gray lines on RMN represent dirt and which are paved. (Again, a horrific strategic decision by RMN. Labeling both arterials and full expressways as "orange line" is irritating, but at worst an inconvenience - making both dirt and paved roads nearly indistinguishable gray lines borders on legally actionable.)
Yeah, I don't get that at all. If any piece of information is important to distinguish on the roads, you think it would be type of surface. Not only should gravel be differentiated from paved, but dirt ought to be further distinguished from gravel. But in the atlas, it's almost impossible to see any difference.
When I take trips off the highway in Oregon, I try to bring the De Lorme -- more detail, although they don't cover eastern Oregon at the same scale as the west.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
QuoteAs for 380; that means there are more 380 shields in the RMcN atlas (2) than there are on the actual highway (1), as of last summer, at least.
correct. I just saw one, at that T-junction, but I forget with which road. I didn't even notice the shield on the way out - just, well after dark, on the way in. I just remember it's just south of the outskirts of Prineville.
Jake: was the one you saw this shield, marked for the side road coming onto 380, that has been there for 3 years:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR380Prineville15.jpg%3Ft%3D1308283476&hash=4577a9d7adcc82b10d29d84809e2992d3217d544)
Or was it this shield just past that intersection on 380 itself:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FIMG_1095.jpg%3Ft%3D1308283188&hash=ba0870eea689b191a5b02982bb6fe26bdb902d5e)
The second is brand new to me, as it wasn't there late last summer. If it wasn't there when you went through, then it's only been up a very short time.
Regrettably, I didn't have time to drive all the way to Paulina and back to see if there were any others put up. Future trip.
I saw the shield at the T junction. Definitely did not spot the eastbound reassurance marker. I was there Sunday the 29th. I am pretty sure the shield was not, unless I just completely whiffed on spotting it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 17, 2011, 01:37:52 AM
I saw the shield at the T junction. Definitely did not spot the eastbound reassurance marker. I was there Sunday the 29th. I am pretty sure the shield was not, unless I just completely whiffed on spotting it.
No way you could have missed it; it was just a couple hundred yards past that intersection. It must have gone up in the last 3 weeks.
Still nothing indicating 380 on US 26, though. You'd think that would be the important spot to mark the highway.
it was early evening; had there been a shield, I would have spotted it, and photographed it in good light.
kind of a neat coincidence, then, that I missed the shield because it was installed just days later.
I once (on April 10, 2007) came across an abandoned car that was had been clearly lying in a field out in the desert since the 70s. There were two scratched-in dates: one was something from 1982, the other, fresh bright metal, April 9, 2007.
This isn't new to the 2012 atlas, as it's been in there for the past few years, but I'm still amused that the Portland, OR inset map still has 99W on Interstate Ave in north Portland. Even better, it still displays OR 208 over in Beaverton: that route hasn't existed since 1982!
Allright, instead of nitpicking road revisions, I want to interject my own general RM-Atlas bitchfest!
I decided to look at this thread only after buying the newest "2012" RM atlas. Last month I took a road trip and the day before we left, I thought I'd buy a new atlas since my last one was from 2006. That one was the full size Travel Guide (spiral) bound style from Walmart. I had no idea that RM had changed publication dates to this ludicrous half-year-ahead BS, but I guess that was the reason I coudln't find any large size RM atlases in any stores I went to. Heck, I thought maybe the GPS and online mapping companies had killed off the traditional road atlas or something! So I just went and used my 2006RM Deluxe and an old 1996 Gousha.
Anyway, the day after I get back from the trip, I go in to Sam's Club and see they had the 2012 out, in the spiral binding ("Festival Guide"). So I got it. Then took it home and compared it to the old one. (I have a metal-spiral "Deluxe" from 2000 as well - these days I seem to buy them only every few years) And then I read this thread and looked at it some more.
I'm kind of disgusted. First of all "Printed in China, Published in USA" ugh.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.trainorders.com%2Fandroid%2Fmisc%2FPublishedUSAprintedChina.jpg&hash=9bdf757836a24cbb28abe704b01308f6040e8177)
While it does appear that everything on the map has been redrawn since my 2006 copy, and the twists and turns of the roads and other details may be a little bit more accurate, that's offset by some poor lithographing. It was mentioned about the difference betwen dirt and paved roads - on the 2006 when there was a road that went from dirt to gravel it was pretty easy to spot. Now it's just so damn fuzzy - there still is a difference but really... I was looking at the Wyoming map since I live there... and a good example is the back road from Chugwater to Horse Creek is one of those that has a dirt section in the middle. And it's really hard to tell that on the map anymore.
Another thing I didn't notice at first was the lack of town elevations. When and why did they get rid of those?
Another beef is in the typesetting choices of the numbers. In 2006 they were just starting to switch to the Highway-Gothic-inspired numerals in the shields. That was cool, no problem with that. But at that time, the rest of the numbers were all in the previous typeface and the old EXIT numbers as well. Now all that stuff is now in Highway-Gothic style and they didn't do a very good job. The new green EXIT number boxes are OK - but there aren't enough of them sometimes. The old style allowed for more to be tagged. Or they need to add some along with arrows to what they have now. And some of the spot-distances-between-roads, the new typeface is so dang narrow compared to before, it's harder to read.
One thing I had liked about that 2006 spiral/Travel Guide version was the regional maps in the front. I've used them for longer distance planning. But now they have them all in the back... scattered amongst the "Festival Guide" that this book now has instead of a Travel Guide. I guess they felt there were too many "travel guide" type books out there so they had to do a "festival guide" instead? :rolleyes: And then people with smart phones can use their bar code things to get the travel guide stuff? So what about me, who doesn't have, nor want to have, one of those phones?
The last thing I want to bitch about are the bounding boxes around Metro Areas indicating an closeup/inset is in the book somewhere. They used to be a nice noticable yellow with a contasting red line - now they are a dull gray and you can't hardly even see them... pretty much useless.
The only improvement is the price tag, it was only 10.88 this year. The 2006 one was 12.82. My 2000 version is missing the back cover so I can't find a price on that one. I'm not so annoyed to return it though, it'll just get added to my collection of atlases.
Picked up the 2012 version at Walmart earlier this week. One significant difference in New England that I have noticed that is different from the 2011 version is I-95 ending at I-91 in New Haven CT and restarting on the east side of the Quinnipiac River, as shown on the BRIDGEPORT/NEW HAVEN insert.
Other than that, I haven't noticed any changes in New England. I'm still waiting for the day RMcN realizes that the so-called "rest areas" along I-95 in CT, a pair on I-90 in western Mass, and those in Maryland north of Baltimore are actually service areas, despite the roads not being tolled, and identifies them as such.
^^^
Well, until some folks here posted some photos, I didn't know that the "Rest Area" on the Western Kentucky Parkway just west of the Natcher Parkway was a service area either.
I need to get a new atlas for my trip next month. What would be the most accurate & user friendly (and not ungodly ugly). Used my 2004 for last month's trip to NO and didnt check to see the big crease running along I-10 in Texas. Had to use it like a Mad magazine fold-in
If you only need a few states I would get the DeLorme Gazetteer atlases. They are zoomed in enough that you can do some pretty elaborate reroutes on back country roads if need be...or scan your route for possible old alignments that might be worth observing.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 11, 2011, 09:35:27 AM
If you only need a few states I would get the DeLorme Gazetteer atlases. They are zoomed in enough that you can do some pretty elaborate reroutes on back country roads if need be...or scan your route for possible old alignments that might be worth observing.
I much prefer the Benchmark Roads and Recreation series to the Delorme, but alas those are only available for Rocky Mountains and west of there.
the reason is: the Delormes do not differentiate between dirt and paved roads, and sometimes show as a good through route a road that has not been maintained since 1977, and has had a bridge taken out since then! Had I followed my Delorme literally, there would have been places where I would've pitched off a cliff.
my Benchmark atlases have, so far, never let me down as far as telling me that a road is paved when it is gravel/dirt. they also make an attempt to differentiate between a good high-quality graded dirt road, where you can go 45mph safely even in a low-clearance two-wheel drive car, and a two-track path which should be strictly avoided in said vehicle.
Was the Delorme in question having data more recent than 1977? For dome reason Delorme doesn't seem to update their data very often; they came out with a new NY edition somewhat recently (I'd say within the past couple of years; it doesn't seem to be as good about showing everything as past editions), but the previous edition pre-dates I-86!
On my weekly excursion to Wal-Mart this morning something told me to revisit the 2012 Rand again. Low and behold it was an updated version! To my surprise they now have Interstate 520 shown as complete to Interstate 20 northeast of Augusta (on both the inset and main map) and the PA 60 shields have been replaced with Interstate 376 shields. A green BL I-376 shield even appears in the Pittsburgh inset. The only thing they neglected to do in that inset was reset the exit numbers along I-376; they still reflect its original mileage before the extension. I really did not notice any other changes, but this is a start. I checked the front and the first part of their product code (on the legends page near the front of the atlas) had changed to a 2, indicating that it was a second edition of the atlas. Maybe Rand decided to go ahead and push out some of the changes instead of waiting for their 2013 release...
In Michigan, my 2011 atlas doesn't have an exit at US-127 and M-57, even though there has been one there for a few years now. And it has the US-31 freeway from Napier Ave to I-94 under construction, even though it was canceled a few years ago. But it does have exit numbers listed for the US-31 freeway north of I-96, which were first posted with the switch to Clearview.
Does anyone know what font Rand McNally is using for their 2012 maps? I thought it was Interstate, but upon close inspection, I'm probably wrong.
I discovered some errors on the 2012 Rand McNally Road Atlas. In Downtown Cincinnati, the map shows an exit ramp from I-71 South to Third St and an on ramp from Sycamore St to I-71 South. Those exits were eliminated about 10 years ago and Third Street now travels one way from east to west, not west to east as it is on the map. The changes were implemented about the same time as construction of Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark, both of which are on the map.
The RM 2012 still absolutely refuses to acknowledge Exit 98 on DE-1 on the Dover, Delaware insert (DE-8 at DE-1). It may be a partial interchange but still...
Quote from: flaroads on September 02, 2011, 10:30:31 PMOn my weekly excursion to Wal-Mart this morning something told me to revisit the 2012 Rand again. Low and behold it was an updated version! To my surprise they now have Interstate 520 shown as complete to Interstate 20 northeast of Augusta (on both the inset and main map) and the PA 60 shields have been replaced with Interstate 376 shields. A green BL I-376 shield even appears in the Pittsburgh inset. The only thing they neglected to do in that inset was reset the exit numbers along I-376; they still reflect its original mileage before the extension.
Now we'll have A and B versions of atlases like we have of official maps? They must have listened to me when I mentioned the errors, specifically this one, in reply to a post about the 2012 on their Facebook page back in April.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 11, 2011, 09:35:27 AM
If you only need a few states I would get the DeLorme Gazetteer atlases. They are zoomed in enough that you can do some pretty elaborate reroutes on back country roads if need be...or scan your route for possible old alignments that might be worth observing.
...the Delormes do not differentiate between dirt and paved roads, and sometimes show as a good through route a road that has not been maintained since 1977, and has had a bridge taken out since then!
Still have my Florida Gazetteer atlas, but it looks like it has been barely updated since 1989, when I see it on bookshelves. It's not very easy to read, with every road as a red line, but quite a level of detail for exploring.
As for the 2012 Rand McNally, well...I picked up a copy for the first time in years, a $5 smaller version of the national atlas with all the states and provinces so my daughter can track where I travel to. She's starting to notice if we take a different route to go to a certain location! Can't say I found any details that bugged me for the bargain price, but she prefers books to computers, anyhow. :)
I don't know what all the fuss is about, every time I've read an RMN atlas, there's some level of detail that's omitted for the sake of design and quick legibility. Doesn't surprise me.
The Michigan Gazetteer has been updated somewhat to give different colors for roads (blue for Interstates, yellow for US highways, red for state highways).
There's a difference between omitting details for legibility (which is always necessary with a map of any scale) and just plain getting it wrong. RMcN often ends up in the latter category.
The Rand McNally is a sad excuse for an atlas. Too bad that Map Quest is out of business, it was a much easier atlas to read, better colors, larger font, etc. than RMcN. For New Mexico, it consists of a single page, one needs a magnifying glass to find any route or town. One inch equals 38 miles. Of course I realize NM in not a hugely populated state, but is almost overlooked in the Rand Mc Nally atlas.
yeah I've kinda wished Louisiana would get a 2 pager. Arkansas got upgraded to 2
The reading material in my bathroom is the '03 Rand McNally atlas. Connecticut had two pages in it.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2011, 03:20:25 PM
The reading material in my bathroom is the '03 Rand McNally atlas. Connecticut had two pages in it.
That's about all Rand McNally is good for.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 16, 2011, 10:20:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2011, 03:20:25 PM
The reading material in my bathroom is the '03 Rand McNally atlas. Connecticut had two pages in it.
That's about all Rand McNally is good for.
I see what you did there.
yeah I went and got the walmart 2012 and its the updated version now. I-520 completed, I-376 extended, and I-69 cosigned with I-55 on the Memphis inset! Was that on the previous years? I know its not on 2010.
I still wish they would upgrade some of the highways in the DFW area. I don't know why it doesn't show 121 as a freeway north of the airport to the Sam Rayburn Tollway split. Also wish Denton was included in the DFW inset. It's big enough IMO. So are cities like Abilene or Brownsville.
I've submitted corrections to Rand McNally a few times, and they've only changed one of them.
The one they've changed is that US-65 from Springfield to Branson, MO, used to be shown as a freeway for its entire length; this was the correction for which I did not submit a reference other than a Google snapshot.
US-45 from Harrisburg to El Dorado, IL, has been four lanes since about 2007, but is still shown as two lanes in Rand McNally. I even submitted a link to the construction project, but to no avail.
I've told them three times now, I think, that the entire state of Chihuahua changed time zones in 1998; this is well documented. It's still wrong in the atlas. This actually affected my travel plans once, as I was crossing the border at El Paso and then taking the bus most of the way into Chihuahua. Fortunately, it worked to my advantage and I gained an hour of travel; if it had worked the other way, I wouldn't have gotten to my destination that night.
I have given up the idea that Rand McNally cares their information is incorrect.
Everyone check your national map on pages 2-3. Look at SC. Does yours say "South Corolina" too?
yep, mine sure does... probably never would have noticed it if it hadn't been mentioned here.
I wish New Orleans would get a bigger inset map...or its own page. It's current inset map is a travesty.