Why don't more maps have a special symbol for 4 lane undivided roads?

[bugo]

Some maps show 4+ lane undivided roads the same way they show 2 lanes (Texas for an example.)  Some show them the same way they show 4 lane divided highways RmcN for an example.) Some maps, like the Arkansas map, show 4 lane undivided roads with a wider line than the 2 lane roads.  Why don't all maps use this?  Looking at a Texas map, you would think there were a lot more 2 lane roads across the state.  US 271 from I-30 to I-20 is shown using the narrow red line, even though most of it is 4 lanes with a wide "median" made of pavement.  All maps should adopt the wide red line for multilane undivided roads.

[Alex]

Rand McNally made the change by 2005 or so from strictly divided highways for yellow lines to "other multilane highways", which makes the map appear to have many more divided highways than there actually are. At least I thought that way until it was pointed out to me that they are no longer divided only.

Georgia's highway map does show multilane undivided highways on it, which is I agree is useful.

[3467]

Illinois shows them witha thick line like Georgia. Rand Mc Nally confused me too. The online sometimes only show Interstate -type and all others.

I wonder if Missouri will have a new symbol for its divided 3 laners

[bugo]

Another pet peeve of mine is showing non-Interstate freeways using the same symbol as the 4 lane expressway.  Texas, I'm looking at you again.

[nexus73]

Red with thin black lines delineated freeways, yellow with thin black lines delineated expressways and green with thin black lines delineated toll roads in the highway maps of yore.  Red lines for main routes, black lines for secondary routes and gray lines for tertiary routes covered the 2-lane highways.  That seemed like a good setup to me and it would be nice to see it return.  I believe it was Gousha who did this.

Rick

[agentsteel53]

the worst thing Rand McNally has done in recent memory is making their dirt roads and their paved roads of tertiary importance almost the same style of gray line.  they are distinguishable, but it requires intense concentration. 

[tdindy88]

I believe Alabama also uses a thick line for their symbols for a four-lane undivided highway. I had also thought that Indiana used this on a previous map for the section of SR 67 in Delaware County from Interstate 69 northeast to the beginning of the Muncie Bypass, which is a four-lane undivided highway with a center turn lane, but the latest map uses the same symbology as a four-lane divided highway.

[deathtopumpkins]

On my maps I usually have the number of lanes correspond with the number of pixels for the line - at least up to 4 lanes.

i.e. I show undivided 2-lane roads as a 2px line, divided 2-lane roads as parallel 1px lines separated by 1px, 3-lane roads as a 3px line (excluding shared left turn lanes), 4+-lane undivided roads as a 4px line, and 4+lane divided roads as parallel 2px lines separated by 1px.

This is independent of whether the road is a freeway, expressway, or arterial - that status is differentiated by color.

[cpzilliacus]

Some maps show 4+ lane undivided roads the same way they show 2 lanes (Texas for an example.)  Some show them the same way they show 4 lane divided highways RmcN for an example.) Some maps, like the Arkansas map, show 4 lane undivided roads with a wider line than the 2 lane roads.  Why don't all maps use this?  Looking at a Texas map, you would think there were a lot more 2 lane roads across the state.  US 271 from I-30 to I-20 is shown using the narrow red line, even though most of it is 4 lanes with a wide "median" made of pavement.  All maps should adopt the wide red line for multilane undivided roads.

My guess is because most such roads are old, and not functionally classified as principal or even minor arterial highways any longer. 

Case in point is much of U.S. 1 between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore City; and much of U.S. 1 between Richmond and Arlington County (and Washington, D.C.). 

U.S. 1 was once the primary interstate highway in those travel corridors, and while many of its segments still carry reasonably high volumes of traffic, much of that traffic (today) is local in nature.

[bugo]

Not always true.  In Arkansas and Texas for example, there are many main highways that are multilane undivided.  Arkansas rarely builds divided highways except for interstates.

[Bickendan]

Another pet peeve of mine is showing non-Interstate freeways using the same symbol as the 4 lane expressway.  Texas, I'm looking at you again.

Or Interstates having a different colour than non-Interstate freeways.

I saw some AAA maps hanging in a storefront today, and even though I don't quite like their non-freeway colour choices, I found it much easier to read than RMN's current scheme. Seems to me that AAA influenced Thomas Bros, my go to in symbology.

[Beltway]

Another pet peeve of mine is showing non-Interstate freeways using the same symbol as the 4 lane expressway.  Texas, I'm looking at you again.

Or Interstates having a different colour than non-Interstate freeways.

The PA map does that for non-tolled routes, but tolled routes are the same color whether Interstate or non-Interstate.

[sp_redelectric]

the worst thing Rand McNally has done in recent memory is making their dirt roads and their paved roads of tertiary importance almost the same style of gray line.

Like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Camp_Road

[Scott5114]

I don't mind the interstates and other freeways being of different colors. Oklahoma and Kansas both use a green triple-line* for Interstate, yellow (KS) or orange (OK) for toll roads, and red for non-Interstate freeways.  It can sometimes be helpful in following Interstate routes through urban freeway networks. (Like I-44 and the Lake Hefner Parkway in OKC...eastbound 44 does a TOTSO and the mainline becomes the LHP, which is a freeway.)

What bothers me the most is maps that do not differentiate between minor state highways and county roads. (RMcN again... seems we all have a problem with their symbology!) In OK at least, I know a state highway is guaranteed to be paved and have a centerline and edge lines. A county road might be chipseal, or gravel, or dirt. If a minor highway ends, but continues on the same alignment as a county road, I don't know what the conditions of the road are likely to be there, and I'm likely to not realize that it's not the route I thought it was and might be looking for the shield as I approach and not find one because it's not really a state highway.

*The line is not actually triple; there are three black lines and then the space between them is colored.

[NE2]

What bothers me the most is maps that do not differentiate between minor state highways and county roads.

Why should they, if they're both well-maintained (or both badly-maintained)? I'd rather have good roads as one symbol no matter who maintains them.

[Scott5114]

Because it can then becomes hazy to determine where the terminus of the highway is. Consider a map like this:


Legend indicates that red roads are major and black are minor. Say my route is on SH-63 and I'm looking to bypass Llanfair and head south on SH-54. Is the section of road between SH-63 and SH-42 a county road or part of SH-54? I can't be sure. If it is part of SH-54, there should be another shield with an arrow there, but the map maker might have just neglected to include one. It may be that SH-54 does end at SH-42, and since the county road that continues north is a bypass of Llanfair, it is judged important enough to include on the map. So coming into town from SH-63 I don't know whether my turn will be marked with a SH-63 shield or if I should be looking for some anonymous county road.

If all state highways were red, and all county roads black (or gray/brown depending on paved/unpaved, or maybe black/gray/depending on major/minor CRs), I would be able to make this determination with much less ambiguity.

[NE2]

Because it can then becomes hazy to determine where the terminus of the highway is.

This is usually not an issue for someone using the map for navigation. In the case you described, it could be problematic, but a 'no' symbol on a major (unshielded) county road would be a better option than making roads look less important than they are.

[Scott5114]

Because it can then becomes hazy to determine where the terminus of the highway is.

This is usually not an issue for someone using the map for navigation. In the case you described, it could be problematic, but a 'no' symbol on a major (unshielded) county road would be a better option than making roads look less important than they are.

I have never seen an example of this in a commercially produced map (I have seen termini marked in various ways in roadgeek produced maps). Do you have one?

[NE2]

Because it can then becomes hazy to determine where the terminus of the highway is.

This is usually not an issue for someone using the map for navigation. In the case you described, it could be problematic, but a 'no' symbol on a major (unshielded) county road would be a better option than making roads look less important than they are.

I have never seen an example of this in a commercially produced map (I have seen termini marked in various ways in roadgeek produced maps). Do you have one?

No, but I'm reminded of Mexican signage that uses a blank shield for an unnumbered federal/state highway.

[Scott5114]

You could easily still indicate relative importance by varying the thickness of the line (so an important CR could be wider than a less important SH) or highlighting unusually important county roads in black and all others in gray.

[kphoger]

Because it can then becomes hazy to determine where the terminus of the highway is.

This is usually not an issue for someone using the map for navigation. In the case you described, it could be problematic, but a 'no' symbol on a major (unshielded) county road would be a better option than making roads look less important than they are.

I have never seen an example of this in a commercially produced map (I have seen termini marked in various ways in roadgeek produced maps). Do you have one?

No, but I'm reminded of Mexican signage that uses a blank shield for an unnumbered federal/state highway.

FYI, they use blank shields on green signs for both numbered and unnumbered route.  I guess it just depends on whether or not they had the numerals in stock that day.

[Special K]

You could easily still indicate relative importance by varying the thickness of the line (so an important CR could be wider than a less important SH) or highlighting unusually important county roads in black and all others in gray.

How do you define "importance"?

[bugo]

You could easily still indicate relative importance by varying the thickness of the line (so an important CR could be wider than a less important SH) or highlighting unusually important county roads in black and all others in gray.

How do you define "importance"?

Quality of road.  Traffic counts.  Lack of redundant routes.  Local and regional importance.

[hm insulators]

Red with thin black lines delineated freeways, yellow with thin black lines delineated expressways and green with thin black lines delineated toll roads in the highway maps of yore.  Red lines for main routes, black lines for secondary routes and gray lines for tertiary routes covered the 2-lane highways.  That seemed like a good setup to me and it would be nice to see it return.  I believe it was Gousha who did this.

Rick

I always liked the old Gousha maps; they were my favorite. Easy to read and very logical.

[agentsteel53]

FYI, they use blank shields on green signs for both numbered and unnumbered route.  I guess it just depends on whether or not they had the numerals in stock that day.

does Mexico have unnumbered federal highways?  I'd bet they do.  I was just on the road that branches off from MX-1 to head to the observatory at Sierra San Pedro Martir - and the very very first sign had an MX-1 shield on it!



I had figured it was an error for an unnumbered federal highway, but wasn't sure.