2012 Rand McNally

[Quillz]

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.

[NE2]

So why are you so sure that it's a copyright trap rather than bad data?

[Quillz]

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.

[mightyace]

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. 

[elsmere241]

Even if this was true, it's not like the USAF didn't know where Moscow was. 

But you couldn't get an accurate street map of Moscow (in Moscow) until around 1990.

[agentsteel53]

ICBMs don't need accurate street maps

[Brandon]

ICBMs don't need accurate street maps

Neither do bombers. 

/Like the Kremlin is so hard to miss in Moscow.

[elsmere241]

/Like the Kremlin is so hard to miss in Moscow.

The Chinese embassy in Belgrade, OTOH . . .

[Truvelo]

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

[rschen7754]

I'm quite saddened at what Thomas Guides have become, especially all the ones in 2011 or later.

[Quillz]

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.)

[exit322]

I haven't gotten one in over a decade...is the AAA road atlas any better?

[thenetwork]

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.

[Henry]

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)

[exit322]

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.

[agentsteel53]

(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.

[Bickendan]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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. 

[DTComposer]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[NE2]

We already have a thread for the 2012 Rand McNally...

[FLRoads]

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...

[PAHighways]

For those of you on Facebook, they posted a link on their page about the road atlas celebrating its 88th birthday with the 2012 release.  Let them hear about these errors there, and maybe someone will respond.

[PAHighways]

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 that one.