--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:39:19 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: cataloguing conundrum <fwd>
Sender: [log in to unmask]



Ken --

I would say you are on the right track to put the correct coordinate
information in the 034 and 255 fields, and to have a note referring to the
incorrect coordinates printed on the map.  But perhaps first compare the
maps with maps of the same area whose coordinates you trust, even if they
are smaller scale maps, just to make sure you are in the correct ballpark
and know which way is north.  And also, you probably don't need as much
detail in your 500 note as you've given in your message here, about the
particulars of the incorrect coordinates.  Just something like "Some
coordinates labelled incorrectly on map" would be sufficient for most
users.

Nancy Kandoian
NYPL Map Div.
[log in to unmask]

----- Forwarded by nkandoian/MHT/Nypl on 11/01/2000 06:29 PM -----

                    Johnnie
                    Sutherland             To:     [log in to unmask] AT
                    <jsutherl@arche        Internet@ccMTA-LIBADMIN01
                    s.uga.edu> AT          cc:     (bcc: nkandoian/MHT/Nypl)
                    Internet               Subject:     cataloguing conundrum <fwd>

                    11/01/2000
                    03:37 PM







--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:34:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: cataloguing conundrum
Sender: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>

I acquired a new map during the summer, that I have been trying to
catalogue.  It is a double map, one side covering the "Inca Trail, or
Camino Inka" to Machu Picchu, and on the other side the "Sacred Valey" and
route from Cusco to the Trail.

The most difficult aspect of the cataloguing effort is that some of the
coordinates given on the map appear to be wrong.  That is, some of the
latutudinal coordinates are numbered in the qrong direction!

On the Camino Inka map, the right hand side shows, north to south, in
two-minute increments, 13 degrees 16 minutes to 13 degrees 10
minutes.  The opposite edge shows, at the top, 13 degrees 10 minutes as
opposite 13 degrees 16, and then to the south 13 degrees 12 minutes.  In
other words, they go in the wrong direction on one side, and nor do they
agree on which parallel is which.

On the other map, the parallels are labelled the same on each edge, but
they appear to be numbered in the wrong direction, going in 10-minute
increments, from 13 degrees 20 minutes to 13 degrees 30 minutes.  This map
shows Cusco along the south edge of the map.  If I assumed that the
right-hand latitudes are correct on the first map, than this could possibly
be from 13 degrees 10 minutes to 12 degrees 50 minutes.

The conundrum is how to convey that, in fields that call for concision in
formatted methods, rather than unformatted.  This is already going to be a
long record (for such a small piece of paper!), with the two maps, each
with parallel titles.  Would it be acceptable practice to include a note
describing the situations with the printed coordinates, with the correct
coordinates (if they are such) in the 034 and the 255 fields?

These are really fine maps, despite the coordinates problem, very
attractively printed, and laden with useful information for the Andean
trekker.

___________________________
Ken Grabach                           <[log in to unmask]>
Maps Librarian                         Phone: 513-529-1726
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, Ohio  45056  USA
--- End Forwarded Message ---


--- End Forwarded Message ---