----------------------------Original message----------------------------
   Finally, my chance to wax philosophical on an esoteric question.
 
   Indeed, the clearest guideline on physical description (1 map on 6
   sheets OR 6 maps) is the question of the neat line (the line which
   encloses the detail of the map). If it takes all 6 sheets to
   complete the neat line, it's definitely 1 map on 6 sheets. However,
   I wouldn't say that the reverse is always true. Even if each sheet
   has a complete neat line, I would still consider calling it 1 map
   on 6 sheets if the bibliographic details appear only on one of the
   sheets, in other words, if the individual sheets could not stand
   alone. Sort of the reverse of CM rule 5B2c, "If the item consists
   of a number of sheets each of which has the characteristics of a
   complete map...treat it as a collection and describe as instructed
   in 5B1 [6 maps]." Thus, the USGS topo set would not be described as
   1 map on 253,987 sheets (no, I just made that up), as each sheet
   has enough bibliographic detail to stand alone. Not that, in
   practice, anyone would catalog each sheet separately (and those who
   do deserve a metal).
 
   The question of the white borders and whether or not the maps can
   be physically joined without cut-and-paste is of much less
   importance in determining the physical description. This is more of
   a question of the practical considerations of printing than the
   intent of the publishers.
 
   Speaking of which, while it *is* presumptuous of a non-librarian,
   let alone a non-cataloger, to suggest a rule, one might consider the
   intent of the publisher if all else fails. Not so much the revision
   situation (if an important detail on one sheet needs to be revised,
   will the publisher reprint the other 5 sheets?), but how will it be
   used? For instance, does the legend appear on all sheets, or just
   one?
 
   I realize I have broken a cardinal rule of cataloging: I haven't
   actually seen the maps in question. Still, I thought I'd share some
   thoughts. I have geared my thoughts towards 20th century printed
   mapping--wouldn't want to get in trouble with the antiquarians out
   there.
 
   One last thought: Linda Smith's remark "I'm seeking information, not
   questioning the cataloging!!" Question away, Linda! After two or
   three months I sometimes find myself questioning my own cataloging.
   I was once asked by someone whether it wouldn't be easier if there
   was one set of rules for everyone to follow in cataloging maps. I
   replied that indeed there is one set of rules--it's just that
   everyone interprets them differently!
 
   Thanks for the use of the soapbox.
 
   There's at least one person in New York laughing hysterically at the
   thought of *me* quoting cataloging rules.
   **********************************************************************
   April Carlucci                [log in to unmask]
   The British Library                        Voice +44 171 412 7000x4167
   Map Library                                      +44 171 412 7703
   Great Russell Street                       Fax   +44 171 412 7780
   London  WC1B 3DG
   United Kingdom               "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
   **********************************************************************