Rand McNally gets lost on Route 66

[frank gifford]

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

[Scott5114]

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.

[Quillz]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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!

[Alps]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Duke87]

I thought "touring route" was a New York term. Does any other state use it?

[Central Avenue]

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.)

[Takumi]

(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.

[agentsteel53]

(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.

[TheStranger]

(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).

[frank gifford]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

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".

[Scott5114]

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.

[NE2]

It would have been useful to have a more direct link: http://www.rt66pix.com/blog
Or even better, post the image:

That shield to the west is in the wrong place, and should be up on US 69 Alternate.

[frank gifford]

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.

[empirestate]

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".

[Central Avenue]

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.

[frank gifford]

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. 

 

[RoadWarrior56]

People here should buy the edition with the US 66 error in it, it may end up being a collectors item.

[Scott5114]

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"...?

[apeman33]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.