Rand McNally has put Route 66 in the wrong place. The error stretches across 60 miles of Oklahoma and Missouri, and deletes the Kansas section entirely.
If you have a Rand McNally Road Atlas, details including a map scan are on the Blog of my website: www.rt66pix.com.
Frank Gifford, rt66pix@hotmail.com
Well, Route 66 technically hasn't existed for thirty years, so...
Also, Rand McNally is pretty awful in general, so yet another error from them is hardly surprising.
It always struck me as odd how Routes 66 and 99 were officially deleted, yet all the states that had said routes are making sure they sign them with special historic shields. Maybe they should have just kept them around.
Quote from: Quillz on March 20, 2012, 06:55:42 PM
It always struck me as odd how Routes 66 and 99 were officially deleted, yet all the states that had said routes are making sure they sign them with special historic shields. Maybe they should have just kept them around.
THIS. So many states sign touring routes on roads they don't maintain.
Quote from: Steve on March 20, 2012, 07:57:50 PM
THIS. So many states sign touring routes on roads they don't maintain.
so many states even sign state highways on roads they don't maintain!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 20, 2012, 07:57:50 PM
THIS. So many states sign touring routes on roads they don't maintain.
so many states even sign state highways on roads they don't maintain!
That's what I said.
Quote from: Steve on March 20, 2012, 08:12:14 PM
That's what I said.
I must be confused on the definition of "touring route". I thought they meant these sort of historic/scenic trails.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WI/WI19560671i1.jpg)
I thought "touring route" was a New York term. Does any other state use it?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 19, 2012, 08:08:43 PM
Well, Route 66 technically hasn't existed for thirty years, so...
True, but I can see why they might want to continue to include it on modern maps. It's not as if there aren't people who will still want to go down "Historic Route 66", you know?
(I'd say there should at least be some indication that it's a historical route and not an active route, but I doubt most non-roadgeeks actually care about the distinction, honestly.)
Quote from: Central Avenue on March 20, 2012, 09:02:07 PM
(I'd say there should at least be some indication that it's a historical route and not an active route, but I doubt most non-roadgeeks actually care about the distinction, honestly.)
Maybe a brown/white US shield like some of the states use.
Quote from: Central Avenue on March 20, 2012, 09:02:07 PM
(I'd say there should at least be some indication that it's a historical route and not an active route, but I doubt most non-roadgeeks actually care about the distinction, honestly.)
it brings to mind what the definition of a "route" is - if not a number assigned to a set of streets. just having something be given a number does not imply a particular quality (as opposed to an interstate designation), so there is no practical difference between an "active" and a "historical" route, except maybe in contrast where both are signed in parallel, like Historic 7A in Vermont.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2012, 09:24:45 PM
Quote from: Central Avenue on March 20, 2012, 09:02:07 PM
(I'd say there should at least be some indication that it's a historical route and not an active route, but I doubt most non-roadgeeks actually care about the distinction, honestly.)
it brings to mind what the definition of a "route" is - if not a number assigned to a set of streets. just having something be given a number does not imply a particular quality (as opposed to an interstate designation), so there is no practical difference between an "active" and a "historical" route, except maybe in contrast where both are signed in parallel, like Historic 7A in Vermont.
And of course, California takes it to an impractical extreme with their CONTINUED use of legislative routings (even after the 1964 renumbering), resulting in crap like "Route 164," the chopped up definition of Route 1 in Southern California, etc.
Massachusetts on the other hand actually bothers to focus on the navigational aspect of route numbering, regardless of who maintains the road.
There's also AASHTO/FHWA's route definitions that don't always match what's in the field (phantom I-305/I-595, I-80 and I-110 in California, and US 377).
I wrote the original post. The error is notable for a couple of reasons, explained in the Blog at www.rt66pix.com. Summarizing briefly:
. Many casual and first-time travelers on Route 66 have ONLY the Road Atlas.
. Rand McNally's Consumer Affairs office was notified about the error, in writing, three times over the past six weeks. This included a map scan and detailed information. There has been no response.
The error will almost certainly deprive many mom-and-pop businesses in OK, KS and MO of tourist income--because those tourists are on the wrong road.
It remains in Rand McNally's database until it's corrected. The 2013 Road Atlas is due out shortly. I'm guessing the mistake is still in there.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 20, 2012, 08:23:00 PM
I must be confused on the definition of "touring route". I thought they meant these sort of historic/scenic trails.
It might mean that in some places, but in New York it's an official term for signed numbered highways generally (Interstate, US, State, County).
And yes, NY is one of those states that signs state
routes over non-state roads, but it can't, by definition, do so with state
highways.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 20, 2012, 08:59:11 PM
I thought "touring route" was a New York term. Does any other state use it?
Not that I can think of, at least in the same sense. Pennsylvania, for its part, calls them "traffic routes".
Quote from: frank gifford on March 21, 2012, 05:13:49 PM
I wrote the original post. The error is notable for a couple of reasons, explained in the Blog at www.rt66pix.com. Summarizing briefly:
. Many casual and first-time travelers on Route 66 have ONLY the Road Atlas.
. Rand McNally's Consumer Affairs office was notified about the error, in writing, three times over the past six weeks. This included a map scan and detailed information. There has been no response.
The error will almost certainly deprive many mom-and-pop businesses in OK, KS and MO of tourist income--because those tourists are on the wrong road.
It remains in Rand McNally's database until it's corrected. The 2013 Road Atlas is due out shortly. I'm guessing the mistake is still in there.
The thing is, though, Rand McNally has a lot of errors. Somewhere else on this forum there's a thread which mentions a lot of them. Rand McNally is actually a rather shoddy atlas and doesn't do as much QA as they should. The thing is that RMcN is the most widely known atlas brand so they sell enough atlases that they don't really care. And if they did, they would probably care more about the errors on routes that are actively used for navigation–while some people use US 66 as an interesting historic artifact, many more people use currently-maintained routes to go about their day-to-day travels, so McNally's focus is going to be on them. It certainly isn't any of McNally's business that their error (which is probably an honest mistake, albeit one that wasn't checked as thoroughly as it probably should have been) might deprive someone's sole proprietorship of some money.
This is assuming that it is, in fact, an error. I don't have very much knowledge of Route 66 history or a recent Rand McNally to check it against, but in some areas Route 66 had several different alignments over the years that it was extant–could just be that RMcN has a different alignment labeled as Route 66 than the one most familiar to you.
It would have been useful to have a more direct link: http://www.rt66pix.com/blog
Or even better, post the image:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt66pix.com%2Fcdn%2Fpub%2Fku5hslwirq-n%2F0%2Fnull%2Fmh%2Fplmfb6jxkr5vq_9smbut%2Fs11%2Fv35%2Fp480545166-3.jpg&hash=cce9172bf8da69608e80192d20883f2907a8aa89)
That shield to the west is in the wrong place, and should be up on US 69 Alternate.
This was my first post on AARoads. I encountered the thread of Rand McNally errors afterward. There's lots of context in there.
Rand McNally's atlas routing IS a mistake, and it stretches for 60 miles across three states, eliminating one entirely. The actual alignment is well-documented and has moved only slightly over the years. Plus it's up to 25 miles from where the atlas says it is. For those who are interested, a second image in the Blog compares the two.
RMcN is clearly aiming the atlas at leisure and recreational travelers with capsule summaries of scenic drives etc. Including Route 66 was part of this effort. If you stay on the Interstates you probably don't need an atlas in most cases (although I always pack one). Many people get by using road signs and Welcome Center maps.
Quote from: frank gifford on March 22, 2012, 08:58:05 AM
Many people get by using road signs and Welcome Center maps.
I dare say that most of the free state maps you find at welcome centers are a whole lot better than the RMcN atlas, so it's probably the atlas users who are only "getting by". ;-)
Quote from: empirestate on March 22, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
I dare say that most of the free state maps you find at welcome centers are a whole lot better than the RMcN atlas, so it's probably the atlas users who are only "getting by". ;-)
Indeed. I'm not familiar with the route of Historic US 66 myself, but judging from the map Frank provided in his blog, it looks like both Oklahoma's and Missouri's state highway maps label the portion in question correctly.
Granted, that's only a single error out of what could be dozens of errors in both maps, but it means in
this case, at least, people are less likely to be misled by the free state maps than the RMcN atlas.
To advance the plot a little bit: Rand McNally has now responded to a news story about this on www.route66news.com. The mistake will be corrected.
Whether it will still appear in 2013 editions of the Road Atlas is unclear. Barnes & Noble will begin shipping at least one edition on April 30th. My version (Large Scale) is printed in China, so there is a significant time-lag.
For anybody who'd like to explore this fascinating bit of Americana, there is one excellent guidebook out there: EZ66 Guide for Travelers, 2nd Edition, by Jerry McClanahan. It retails for under $20.
Problem is that most first-timers and casual travelers have never heard of it.
People here should buy the edition with the US 66 error in it, it may end up being a collectors item.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 22, 2012, 07:42:40 PM
People here should buy the edition with the US 66 error in it, it may end up being a collectors item.
Then
every Rand McNally would end up being a collector's item. Didn't the 2012 edition misspell "South Carolina"...?
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on March 22, 2012, 07:42:40 PM
People here should buy the edition with the US 66 error in it, it may end up being a collectors item.
Things like that only become collector's items if the error is caught but editions with the error still reach the street. If every atlas printed that year have the same error, then they're all the same and not meaningful to collectors for that reason.
If you're going to use a map with that kind of resolution to try to follow old US 66, you deserve what you get. We have an Internet now, it's far too easy to plan ahead and print out the turn by turn directions.
Even before the days when the Internet was a household convenience, there were books about US 66. I bought my dad several of them for Christmas one year. He had given some thought to trying to travel some of the old alignments but never did get to, but he enjoyed those guides nonetheless. They chronicled several of the old historic routings. I remember one book in particular minced no words in urging tourists to use caution and not get lost if they were trying to retrace the old route in East St. Louis, Ill.
I need to find those tomes now that I'm living in my dad's old home. One of them had some pretty neat signage pictures, including a US 60/US 66 assembly from Oklahoma.
Quote from: Steve on March 23, 2012, 12:31:47 AM
If you're going to use a map with that kind of resolution to try to follow old US 66, you deserve what you get. We have an Internet now, it's far too easy to plan ahead and print out the turn by turn directions.
If you just want to drive the final alignment, the atlases are fine.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2012, 11:38:11 AM
I need to find those tomes now that I'm living in my dad's old home. One of them had some pretty neat signage pictures, including a US 60/US 66 assembly from Oklahoma.
If you find that one, please do try to scan the pictures! I'm sure we'd all love to see them.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 19, 2012, 08:08:43 PM
Well, Route 66 technically hasn't existed for thirty years, so...
Also, Rand McNally is pretty awful in general, so yet another error from them is hardly surprising.
US 66, maybe, but there's still MO 66, KS 66 and OK 66 ;)
Route 66 exists, just as the Great River Road and other tourist routes.
Quote from: NE2 on March 24, 2012, 04:55:40 AM
Route 66 exists, just as the Great River Road and other tourist routes.
Yes, as Historic Byway.
Quote from: bugo on March 23, 2012, 11:54:25 AM
Quote from: Steve on March 23, 2012, 12:31:47 AM
If you're going to use a map with that kind of resolution to try to follow old US 66, you deserve what you get. We have an Internet now, it's far too easy to plan ahead and print out the turn by turn directions.
If you just want to drive the final alignment, the atlases are fine.
From what I've gathered from this conversation, and from the snippet NE2 posted, it seems they've put a shield in completely the wrong spot (that is, on a road that was not the final nor any alignment of US 66). So no, in this regard, the atlases are not fine.
(I posted the original story "Rand McNally Gets Lost on Route 66")
An update: Rand McNally's upcoming 2013 Road Atlas will continue to show a 60-mile error on Route 66 in some copies. This extends across parts of Oklahoma and Missouri, deleting Kansas entirely.
The company confirms some copies were printed before the correction was made as a "running change." The mistake currently appears on Missouri maps in four versions of the Road Atlas, some printed in China, others in the USA.
Westbound travelers in Missouri are probably most affected...along with mom-and-pop businesses in Joplin MO, Galena and Baxter Springs KS, Commerce and Miami OK.
2013 Rand McNally Road Atlases, some with the mistake, will remain on sale for a year until the 2014 editions come out.
For the entire story including the map and a comparison to the correct route--see: www.rt66pix.com/blog.
Frank, thanks for the update and I applaud your efforts in getting RMcN to pull its act together! It's definitely apparent that you have a vested interest in promoting Route 66 tourism, which is great. Do you represent or support a particular Route 66 booster organization?
My reason for asking is that I wonder whether you, or such organization, have considered creating and distributing your own info or maps on Route 66 showing the correct route for travelers? For while I agree that RMcN should be held to account for its accuracy standards, it seems a bit dicey to rely on them to properly disseminate information for which you feel a certain personal responsibility. It's bit like complaining that Google Street View shows an outdated photo of your business before you renovated it, or even moved into the site at all...whenever I read those, my advice is always for the business owner to go ahead and take his own recent photos of the place and post them himself!
empirestate: I own a photography website, www.rt66pix.com which offers some 700 Route 66 images as prints and merchandise. It also has a Travel section. Each state along the way has an association, but I don't represent any group. It's more of a shared "community of interest."
The RMcN problem generally will affect first-time and casual travelers--and there are many of them--who have a little extra time and decide to venture off I-44 to sample the Mother Road. They have only the Atlas...and they get lost. And many people doing 66 are non-Americans.
There are various state publications available (along with signs and road stencils in places). And there is an excellent @$20. book I've recommended here and elsewhere, the EZ66 Guide for Travelers (2nd Edtn) by Jerry McClanahan. It's 200 pages or so with lots of detailed maps. Problem is first-timers won't have it...and may not have the other publications...only Rand McNally.
The other, related, issue was the company's non-response to three detailed written letters. Other posts here on AARoads provide important context on this!
For those interested, a good way to follow what's going on with Route 66 is through the website www.route66news.com. This story has just run on that site, with some additional response from RMcN.
This thread has me thinking.
The Alaska Highway and the various highways up in Alaska, Yukon and NWT have extensive information and coverage thanks to the Milepost.
A highway like US 66 should have a similar publication. In fact, you could argue that the old Trails (Lincoln Highway, National Pike, etc) should have similar publications.
Bickendan: There is a good, and free, Route 66 on-line magazine that comes out every two months: www.66themotherroad.com. The most-recent issue was March 1st. There is also a conventional printed "Route 66 Magazine" available by subscription.
So there's no shortage of information for those who have gotten beyond the "let's follow the Road Atlas" stage.
Quote from: Bickendan on March 28, 2012, 10:18:52 PM
This thread has me thinking.
The Alaska Highway and the various highways up in Alaska, Yukon and NWT have extensive information and coverage thanks to the Milepost.
A highway like US 66 should have a similar publication. In fact, you could argue that the old Trails (Lincoln Highway, National Pike, etc) should have similar publications.
The Lincoln Highway Association was reinstituted back in the mid 90s and has a quarterly newsletter they send out to their members (among other items and benefits they offer); http://www.lincolnhighwayassoc.org/