I started compiling statistics showing the number of "cartographic-materials"
records on OCLC by institution in 2001 and have kept generating similar statistics
every year since.

I've shared the numbers with some of you over the years, and I sent them to MAPS-L
in 2007. It seemed time to share them again. The 2015 numbers are at

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/collections/maps/map_cataloging_stats_2005-2015.pdf

If you're interested, you might want to check the MAPS-L archives for my comments on
the statistics then, as well as other folks' observations. Briefly, these statistics are
only a measure of libraries' success in getting records to OCLC. The numbers are
heavily influenced by many factors, including, for example, how libraries treat sets.
Institutions that "analyze" sets of topos, nautical charts, and flood insurance maps
are going to be overrepresented in proportion to how much material they've actually
cataloged. Libraries that don't even analyze monographic series (like the USGS I
series) will be underrepresented. There are numerous other factors that affect these
numbers. The table probably needs dozens of footnotes explaining odd figures.

Also, please forgive my focus on big U.S. libraries. If I were to start compiling similar
figures today, I'd certainly include more institutions.

You should realize that I've been compiling these statistics for annual reports.
They're as accurate as I could make them, but of course I wouldn't have been as
inclined to gather these numbers together if they didn't make the University of
Chicago Map Collection look good. Be cynical if you want. It's very unlikely by the
way that we'll be adding anything like as many records in future years. There are
now only a few pockets of uncataloged materials in the collection.

Do feel free to ask questions or to make comments.

Chris Winters
University of Chicago Library
[log in to unmask]