------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: trim or fold?...cataloger measurements
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:45:36 -0400
From: Bertuca, David <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship <[log in to unmask]>
Joel's comment is a good one (he is correct that most of us may be
considering lower value, current maps) and I should have specified in my
message the times when we WOULDN'T trim a map to save it. the maps that
we might do some slight trimming on (maybe 1/4 inch or so) are usually
modern items such as USGS topo quads and high-use mass-produced maps
that have large margins. We still try to keep the margins intact as much
as possible as they also protect the data inside the neatline.
Older maps, historic topos, and maps that we feel need to retain their
original borders, we would not cut. However, I have some older maps, and
have seen very old maps in other collections, where the edges have been
cut, most likely by someone who owned them long before a collection
obtained them. Since some publishers cut maps out of their atlases, or
otherwise re-worked them for various reasons; one cannot go by sheet
dimensions unless they can prove these are the originals.
From a cataloger's point of view, Susan makes an important point, that
the neatline is the place to measure. I have some gov't maps from
different printings of the same map, where the sheet size is drastically
different, but the neatline dimensions are the same. This makes matching
records more precise. It also does not take any longer than measuring
just the sheet. There are times when a cataloger should consider
measuring both neatline and sheet dimensions, and they do so as needed.
The long-term conservationist in me though would like to tax your brains
with a corollary concept: the "new" maps of today, may someday be rare
maps. How we treat them now will provide for the future when even some
of the gov't produced maps are considered rare. I know that
mass-produced maps will probably not be in this category for centuries,
though the way we assume that everyone is keeping them, there could come
a time when everyone doesn't have them, expecting that some other
collection kept theirs. I have conversations now with administrators who
feel that since it's all available online, why keep the paper copies...
David J. Bertuca, Map Librarian
225 Capen Hall University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-1672
716-645-1332 / 716-645-3710 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
Liaison to the Geography Department for GIS and Physical Geography
-----Original Message-----
From: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Angie Cope, American
Geographical Society Library, UW Milwaukee
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: trim or fold?...cataloger measurements
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: trim or fold?...cataloger measurements
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:29:22 -0400
From: Joel Kovarsky <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship <[log in to unmask]>
My comment here is purely with respect to the remark below. This is what
catalogers do, but for those dealing with items carrying significant
monetary valuation, there are security reasons for measuring and
recording (somewhere) not only neatline to neatline, but also the entire
sheet. Implicit in this conversation is the idea that this thread is not
dealing with items currently in the high valuation group. I suspect that
will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Not everything
can be saved intact.
Joel Kovarsky
On 4/12/2013 5:16 PM, Angie Cope, American Geographical Society Library,
UW Milwaukee wrote:
>
> This is one of the reasons catalogers measure from neat line to neat
> line (or cartographic extent, whichever is larger)for the physical
> description instead of the sheet size.
>
> Susan Moore
> University of Northern Iowa
> Cedar Falls, IA
|
