A PA28 INSTRUCTOR AND TRAINEE OBTAIN TAXI CLRNC TO PNS RWY 26 AND TAXI ACROSS RWY 8 WITHOUT CLRNC. INSTRUCTOR STATES THAT PUBLISHED ARPT DIAGRAMS DO NOT DEPICT TXWYS RESULTED FROM NEW ARPT CONSTRUCTION. INSTRUCTOR ADMITS ERROR.

Narrative

ATIS DUTY RWY 17. SUBJECT ACFT CLRED TO 'TAXI TO RWY 26.' WE TAXIED FROM GA; N ON TXWY C AND CROSSED RWY 8/26. BOTH STUDENT AND MYSELF WERE THINKING RWY 8; WHICH INVOLVED TXWY B. FRANKLY; NEITHER OF US NOTICED TXWY D. WE 'BLEW IT' BY TAXIING ACROSS 'AN ASSIGNED RWY.' I DON'T THINK GND CTL WILL FILE A VIOLATION BECAUSE THE CLRNC WAS TO RWY 26. NO TXWYS WERE EVER MENTIONED. THE PNS ARPT HAS NOT DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF PUBLISHING THE ARPT DIAGRAM. I AM CONCERNED THAT THE QUALITY OF RWY/TXWY LIGHTING AND TXWY SIGNS MAY CAUSE CONFUSION TO PLTS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LAYOUT OF THE ARPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: A TWR SPECIALIST STATED THAT PUB NOTIFICATION HAD NOT BEEN TIMELY AND WERE WAITING FOR THE 'PROCESS' TO BE COMPLETED. HE WAS NOT SURPRISED THAT ASRS HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ARPT DIAGRAMS NOT BEING UP-TO-DATE. THE COMMERCIAL CHART PUBLISHER HAD NOT RECEIVED FAA OR ARPT NOTIFICATION ABOUT THE ARPT DIAGRAM CHANGES. HE SAID HE WOULD INITIATE COORD WITH PNS ARPT OFFICIALS TO OBTAIN CHANGE INFO. THE RPTR FREELY ADMITS THAT; AFTER OBTAINING A TAXI CLRNC TO RWY 26; IN HIS MIND HE STILL WAS THINKING RWY 8. THEREFORE; HE CROSSED RWY 8/26. WHEN CHKING HIS CHARTS; HE NOTICED THAT BOTH THE GOV AND COMMERCIAL CHARTS WERE NOT CORRECTLY DEPICTING NEW TXWY CONSTRUCTION. ALSO; LATER; WHEN LNDG ON RWY 17; EXITING ONTO TXWY D; HE WASN'T SURE IF THE RWY 17/35 EDGE LIGHT SHOULD BE LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF TXWY D. IT CAUSED HIM ADDITIONAL CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER HE SHOULD BE ENTERING THE TXWY OR NOT.