--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Cataloging maps with a bad scale bar <fwd>
Sender: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>

I am interested to see what people suggest to this conundrum.  I had a map
with a similarly incorrect scale bar, although the map I had was press
printed.  I found nothing in the cataloging manuals that directly address
the description of scales designated incorrectly.  Considerable discussion
was devoted to how much effort to make to compare (or rather, to not
bother to compare) map scales, but not what to do when the comparison
reveals errors in the map being described.  On the other hand, sometimes a
scale statement and bar scale are obviously off by large amounts.
Happens seldom, but it happened to me. I elected to borrow from the
technique used to describe incorrect pagination and incorrect publication
dates.

In the 255 field I indicated the stated scale, and in square brackets gave
the more accurate fraction, with the Latin abbreviation "i.e.", like this:

255     Scale 1:x,xxx,xxx [i.e. 1:y,yyy,yyy]

and in the 034 field I gave the corrected scale.  If there is some other
technique that is considered more appropriate, I would be pleased to know
about it, too.

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


On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Johnnie Sutherland wrote:

> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:31:37 -0400
> From: Kathleen Weessies <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Cataloging maps with a bad scale bar
> Sender: Kathleen Weessies <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> We, no (who am I kidding), my cataloger is working on a set of Rwanda maps
> from the United Nations Information Management Unit, produced with Rwanda
> UNDP.  The printing quality looks like a desktop publishing effort rather
> than press, even though some of the sheets are large.  On many of these maps
> the scale bar is wrong.  The length of the scale bar and the distance
> attributed to it does not correspond to the actual distance, if compared to
> other maps with known scales.
>
> I suspect that these maps were manipulated on a desktop, with the map
> enlarged to fill the page without also enlarging the scale bar.
>
> The cataloger has computed the correct natural scale, but wants to indicate
> in the record that the scale bar is not correct.  Has anyone out there dealt
> with this situation before?
>
> Kathleen Weessies
> Maps/GIS Librarian
> Library 100
> Michigan State University
> East Lansing, MI  48823
> 517-432-9669
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> --- End Forwarded Message ---
>
>


--- End Forwarded Message ---