3 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I'm used to the Rand McNally road atlas, which is organized alphabetically by state, making it easy to turn directly to a state. Michelin uses a grid across the continental U.S., starting in the northwest corner and proceeding eastward, row by row. The disadvantages of this are that an overview map or index is needed to find a place, and that big states are scattered across non-contiguous pages. For example, California is on pages 17-18, 31-32, 44-45, and 56-57. The advantages are that, driving east or west, one just flips pages. All maps are horizontal, so there's never a need to rotate the atlas. All maps in the continental U.S. use the same scale (1:1,470,000), making it easier to get a feel for distances. The northeast corridor is covered again at 1:810,000.
Canada and Mexico are covered in the same way, at different scales, Canada at 1:1,650,000 and Mexico at 1:6,290,000.
Maps are uncluttered, which is another way of saying that some details are omitted. Counties, rest areas, and scenic routes are not marked.
There are many fewer detailed city maps than Rand McNally provides. For example, only Rand McNally includes the following California cities: Bakersfield, Fresno, Lancaster, Modesto, Monterey, Oceanside, Oxnard, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, and Stockton. Michelin places cities alphabetically in a separate section. For example, Birmingham and Boston are on the same page.
Michelin sorts the city index first by city, then by state. For example, all 19 Clintons are together, from Clinton, AR to Clinton, WI.
Overall, I prefer the Rand McNally, but I wish they'd switch to a grid layout.