For the whole question of whether to include folded measurements, go to Cartographic Materials, Rule 5D, second part of Application 5 and first paragraph of Application 6. Essentially, if a map is issued , or therefore intended, to be folded then those dimensions should be recorded. But if the map was "folded for convenience" then do not record the folded size in the 300 field, though you can make a note on this aspect if you feel it's important. Sometimes we get a flat map in which its obvious that it has a panel printed on it though it was not issued folded that way, so Ken is right about the "Designed to be folded" note. 

If Silvana can be certain that one or both maps were issued as folded, by intent, then that info can go into 300$c, but if not then I would not include there and for the sake of describing the local copy either add a 500 note in the master record with a $5 and the institution symbol to indicate the circumstance of that institution OR do not mention a folded size until you are working on a local copy of the record. 

As for questions 1 and 2, Louise's reply was a good one. She especially touched on whether or not the added information to the second "copy" of this map was printed on or annotated by hand by someone updating it for their purposes. 

Based on the description Silvana has given -- and of course not being able to see the two maps for comparison is a barrier to any kind of exact answer -- it sounds to me like these are the same map but one was cut down to eliminate the additional text. And especially if the "newer" version with updates to plots sold is hand annotated , rather than printed. If creating records using OCLC in your work Silvana I would strongly encourage you to review "When to create a new record" and make decisions based on that set of guidelines if possible. ( http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input.html ) It sounds to me like all core aspects of the main map are the same between them, as you mention the title and publication date in particular. Do not make decisions based on sheet size, for the reason I gave above, the sheet size is easily altered; instead if the dimensions of the MAP are the same that's another clue that these likely are copies of each other. 

As for using "work letters" in the call number to distinguish -- Louise also answered this well. Different institutions decide to do this for map call numbers or not (generally not). At Penn State we do not, based exactly on what Louise conveyed, and we also use the extension of numbers on the author cutter (though we never use "1", instead we would go from .U5 to .U52, .U53, etc. as LC policy has always been to not use the number "1" when working with cutters or subject codes). If you want to use work letters at the local level feel free to do so and consult LC's Shelflisting Manual for guidance. If you even want to put them into an OCLC master record it wouldn't be "wrong" per se but it would make work for others wanting to use that record to strip them back out to fit the local system or circumstance. 

Paige 
----- Original Message -----

From: "Ken Grabach" <[log in to unmask]> 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 3:10:23 PM 
Subject: Re: questions for map catalogers 

I await more expert responders to #1 and #2. 

On #3. 
No matter how it is stored, you describe in 300c the dimensions of the map, unfolded. If you are keeping it flat, sounds like you are, since it's encapsulated, you would add the phrase, "designed to be folded to ... " or "originally folded to ..." and give the folded dimensions, also. Where the original cataloger is keeping a map folded, the phrase "folded to ..." might be used. But always for a map description, give its dimensions as a flat map or of the sheet, when there are no neat lines, "on sheet ...". 

There are other conventions where a single map is on more than one sheet, and where a single map is on both sides of one sheet. 

Ken Grabach 
Maps Librarian 
Miami University Libraries 
Oxford, OH 45056 USA 

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Angela R Cope < [log in to unmask] > wrote: 







From: [log in to unmask] < [log in to unmask] > 
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 12:38 PM 
To: MAPS-L 
Subject: questions for map catalogers 
Hi there, 
I normally work with rare books, but I occasionally catalog cartographic 
materials as well. 
I don't do them regularly, so it's like I have to relearn it every time 
I start again :/ 
I have 2 cadastral maps in hand. They show the same exact area (same 
neat line dimensions), with the same title, pub, date etc. but they're 
are distinct differences between the 2. one copy is on a larger sheet 
(map would be on the inside (or backside?) of a large originally folded 
pamphlet). this copy also has a lot of text (on the "cover" side about 
the construction company and the area being developed). The 2nd copy is 
on a sheet a tiny bit larger than the neat line dimensions, looks 
exactly the same, except there is no additional text. I don't know if 
there's any text on the backside as it has been mounted on thicker 
paper. Looks like it was folded too, but to much smaller dimensions, and 
I don't know if it was issued that way. Also, the 2nd copy has been 
updated to show more lots were sold (sold lots are highlighted in red), 
so it was obviously issued later than than the 1st. 

So question #1, does the second map get a new record or is it added as a 
2nd copy w/differences detailed in local notes? 

Question #2, do sheet maps get work letters attached to dates when more 
than one version of the same maps is issued in (presumably) the same 
year (like books do)? 

Question #3, even though they were originally issued folded, they are 
currently unfolded and encapsulated. So, if my understanding is correct, 
you physically describe them in their present state in 300c. Should I 
make a note describing original folded state and dimensions? 

Thanks, 
-Silvana 
[log in to unmask] ​ 






-- 
Ken Grabach 
Maps Librarian 
BEST Library, 219D 
Miami University Libraries 
Oxford, OH 45056 USA 

513-529-1726