Toward a more user-friendly road atlas format

[brianreynolds]

I hear rumors and reports of the impending demise of the familiar old paper map.  By logical extension, the road atlas must be near the end of its useful existence too.

I am a dinosaur.  I do not text.  Most of my telephone conversations involve land lines.  Most of my highway navigation is done in reference to analog paper maps.

For many years I have wished for a better road atlas, one that offers a more consistent and useful perspective.  I see no point in having an entire page dedicated to Delaware or Rhode Island. 

I also find it aggravating that there is so little overlap from state to state.  It makes it difficult to plan ahead when there is not adequate perspective.

Another annoyance is the transition from state to state being alphabetical.  Arkansas and Texas are in opposite ends of the book.

And, when you make that transition, the scale of the map is sometimes wildly different from the previous map.

Wouldn't it be better to have maps by region, with one region page next to the adjoining region, at the same scale, with maybe 10% or 15% overlap between regions?

Yes, of cpurse, it is true that the appropriate scale for sufficient detail will differ between regions.  New England isn't like New Mexico.  I don't propose a single scale for the whole, just common scales for adjoining regions where appropriate.

This could even be done in the context of the traditional state-by-state atlas, as an added-value extra.  Something like that might even extend the useful life of this fading format.

--
Brian Reynolds
Hastings Michigan

[texaskdog]

I've seen maps that go west to east then north to south.  Makes it tough for the ups & downs

[oscar]

Brian, what you propose sounds a lot like the Michelin atlases that have been available lately for the United States, as well as some really old road atlases.  (I'm traveling, so I can't be more specific.)  I remember also the 1965 Rand McNally/Texaco atlas followed a state-by-state format, but grouped the states by region rather than alphabetically. 

[austrini]

There are a lot of atlases with the features you describe. MapArt, Michelin, etc. The reason most states have their own pages is that the largest customers for these products are governments or urban planning or realty groups which often work within a single state at a time for planning purposes. Most cross-country travelers dont use them anymore in favor of digital solutions. The people who need printed maps now are the ones who need to mark them up with sales territories or home-sales-locations.

I was in the printed map industry for 12 years (Rand McNally, Mapsco, MapSource, Thomas Guides) and the year over year sales have declined dramatically over the past decade. At one of these companies we saw a one-year decline in product movements of over 75%. I'm sure printed maps will always be around, but not in the volume or at the quality they've been in the past.

[kphoger]

I have a MapArt atlas that I bought in Canada, which includes Canada and the United States, plus the stupid one-page approach to México that McNally does.  This atlas follows a grid-type system with some overlap, and also moves by region rather than alphabetically.  Unfortunately, I am not impressed with the level of detail and general usability as compared to McNally, so I pretty much never use the thing.

My go-to atlas for México is Guía Roji, and this atlas too uses a grid system rather than political boundaries, and moves geographically rather than alphabetically.  I find its format very useful; its level of detail has its pros and cons.

[texaskdog]

There are a lot of atlases with the features you describe. MapArt, Michelin, etc. The reason most states have their own pages is that the largest customers for these products are governments or urban planning or realty groups which often work within a single state at a time for planning purposes. Most cross-country travelers dont use them anymore in favor of digital solutions. The people who need printed maps now are the ones who need to mark them up with sales territories or home-sales-locations.

I was in the printed map industry for 12 years (Rand McNally, Mapsco, MapSource, Thomas Guides) and the year over year sales have declined dramatically over the past decade. At one of these companies we saw a one-year decline in product movements of over 75%. I'm sure printed maps will always be around, but not in the volume or at the quality they've been in the past.

Thanks to the GPS geeks

[kkt]

I am much happier using printed atlases.  The pages are much bigger than you get on a portable GPS.  Even most desktop computers don't have screens as big as a printed atlas page.

Besides, the printed atlases seem to have better editorial control.  I don't see "Highway 97 in California" stretched alongside US-97 throughout Washington and Oregon.

[kphoger]

FISH!  FISH!  Where's the FISH!

[Alex]

You could always look at the HEMA "Ultimate United States Road" atlas. It is designed differently than the conventional state by state pages, instead using pages with overlap that go from west to east and north to south, covering the whole country. Their cartography is not my favorite, but the alternate scope is a nice concept.

Personally, if I could make or have a custom atlas made, I'd opt for a 48-state atlas. I have no need for the Canada or Mexico sections, and using the Alaska or Hawaii maps is not practical for visiting those states. This would allow for bigger or additional state maps and more city insets.

[HighwayMaster]

It's sad that the paper isn't used as much, but it isn't a surprise. Thanks, Google Maps.

[brianreynolds]

Brian, what you propose sounds a lot like the Michelin atlases that have been available lately for the United States, as well as some really old road atlases.  (I'm traveling, so I can't be more specific.)  I remember also the 1965 Rand McNally/Texaco atlas followed a state-by-state format, but grouped the states by region rather than alphabetically. 

I will sheepishly admit that I have not looked at the alternatives. In recent years, I've gotten into the bad habit of buying the dirt-cheap annual Wal-Mart issue of the RMcN.

I also picked up a 2009 issue of "The American Road Atlas" by The Lawrence Group.  It had a cover price of $12.95, but was being sold at Menard's for well under $5.

Both of these were low-cost.  With corresponding value.  I'll certainly have a serious look at the Michelin when I have an opportunity.  I'm not likely to find one here in Tinytown.

Thanks, Oscar.

--
Brian Reynolds
Hastings Michigan

[SteveG1988]

This i think is an ideal solution:

Dedicated atlas E-Book.

If you sell it for cheap enough, and make the updates reasonably priced it would sell decently to truckers, businessmen, and roadgeeks.

Features:

Able to highlight routes using built in highlighters

Able to put notes on spots of the road

Able to zoom in or out without having to wait for it to refresh data, as the maps are preloaded unlike google maps.

[PHLBOS]

This i think is an ideal solution:

Dedicated atlas E-Book.

If you sell it for cheap enough, and make the updates reasonably priced it would sell decently to truckers, businessmen, and roadgeeks.

Features:

Able to highlight routes using built in highlighters

Able to put notes on spots of the road

Able to zoom in or out without having to wait for it to refresh data, as the maps are preloaded unlike google maps.

Novel idea, but I still prefer using a road map or atlas.  While I use MapQuest or Bing Maps to map out an overall route; I still like having the individual road maps to view surrounding roads should the need arise to take a detour due to a traffic related jam-up due to construction or an accident.

[Duke87]

The state by state format has never bothered me. Nor has the resulting variation in scale. Or that they are placed in alphabetical order.

As for electronics, I do have Google maps on my phone, and I do use it. In some ways it's superior to Rand McNally: it shows everything, not just major roads. It can show live traffic data. But, it doesn't work if I'm in an area with no cell service. It doesn't work outside of the US (well, it could, but I'm not paying $2.05/MB in data roaming charges for the privilege). And, when it comes to looking at things on a less local scale, I prefer flipping through pages and having a physical atlas in front of me.

[Scott5114]

If only there were some way to get all the state DOT maps bound into atlas form...

[HighwayMaster]

If only there were some way to get all the state DOT maps bound into atlas form...

That would be sweet, but users would be easily confused by the abundance of different symbols.

[Scott5114]

Well, I wasn't thinking so much as a commercial product, but as a convenience someone with a lot of maps could do to forge their own atlas.

The best mapping solution I have found is the time-tested Box O' DOT Maps. State DOT maps seem to be the most error free and most DOTs around here have cartography superior to McNally (also, as you say, it differs from state to state).

I have considered making an Oklahoma map on Wikipedia, using the Wikipedia standard road map legend. Maybe if I did that others might follow suit and one could make an atlas out of those.

[deathtopumpkins]

While I intend to probably stick to the tried-and-true format, I have actually been working on my own road atlas for quite sometime now, drawn by hand using what I consider superior cartography to Rand McNally...

It's nowhere near complete, though several states are fairly far along, and I have yet to work out any of the layout for actually putting it in book form - all I've done is draw the roads.

I can post some work-in-progress samples if anyone wants to see them.

[NE2]

Someone did this for railroads - see "A Railroad Atlas of the United States in 1946" (it was all downhill from then).

[empirestate]

We've hit on this topic before, and while I agree that the decline of paper maps is regrettable, I've just never been convinced by the benefit of regional vs. state-by-state. I find I'm equally likely to have to flip to an alphabetically distant page as I am to one that's not in the flow order for region-based (i.e., the maps progress E-W but I'm traveling N-S). To put it another way, I don't cross state lines nearly frequently enough for it to be any more than the slightest inconvenience. But if region-based is what I have on hand, I'm perfectly happy with that as well.

What I do love about paper, though, is that you see a much greater area in more detail than you can digitally. They haven't figured out how to show a whole state in one view on your computer without drastically cutting the level of detail. I think Ken Jennings deals with this in his new book Maphead, suggesting that because of how digital devices display maps, many people know a lot more about their local area but have a diminishing grasp of the nation-wide geography. (That's certainly true of New Yorkers, but that might just be because of being New Yorkers...)

[hobsini2]

If only there were some way to get all the state DOT maps bound into atlas form...

That would be sweet, but users would be easily confused by the abundance of different symbols.

And some DOT maps are better than others as well.
Most states are very good. But than you have states like Arizona and California that when you ask for a state issued map, it's worse than a AAA road atlas. Also I would prefer a state to give information and not just make up almost half of the back where city insets are just pictures. Looking at you Wisconsin. The circa 1982 WI state issued map was awesome as it had every city over 10,000 have an inset that covered the back page. It had insets for places like Watertown and Monroe that in the more recent issues are not there.

But it would be awesome if there was a state DOT atlas.

[Scott5114]

State DOT map inset discussion split to new thread.

[mjb2002]

There are a lot of atlases with the features you describe. MapArt, Michelin, etc. The reason most states have their own pages is that the largest customers for these products are governments or urban planning or realty groups which often work within a single state at a time for planning purposes. Most cross-country travelers dont use them anymore in favor of digital solutions. The people who need printed maps now are the ones who need to mark them up with sales territories or home-sales-locations.

I was in the printed map industry for 12 years (Rand McNally, Mapsco, MapSource, Thomas Guides) and the year over year sales have declined dramatically over the past decade. At one of these companies we saw a one-year decline in product movements of over 75%. I'm sure printed maps will always be around, but not in the volume or at the quality they've been in the past.

I have collected maps from my local stores because they are so much better than GPSes. I also recently bought two county atlases from Map Supply, a company in Lexington, N.C.

The prospects of finding maps outside of the state DOTs main offices look grim. As much as I want you to be proven wrong, you just may be right.

I don't like GPSes for a number of reasons. Solar storms, waste of money, no reception from Satellites in areas. The list is pretty long.

That is why I shell out the $7-$20 for paper maps and atlases.