Rick,
I am sure Paige will have some thoughts.  Here are mine.  I trust you about the record being a correct match with the map(s) you have in hand.

With coordinates in the description but not on the map.  I have seen a few descriptions where it appeared a cataloger used some standard coordinates for a named geographic entity.  That could be going on here.  I prefer to describe what is there, and not what is absent.  If there are coordinates on the maps, I include them.  If they are not present, I don't add them, but that is my own idea, not the only right one.

On the other question, is this two maps or one?  Partly, I think, it depends on how the title reads.  Also, how is the apparent extension labelled?  It could be a single map with two scales, one for each segment.  Or it could be two maps.  I think where more than one scale appears on a single map you can still use two 034 and 255 fields, one for each scale.  If anything in the printed information such as title, labels of parts, or whatever, indicates one map with a continuation, then that is what to go by.  If nothing suggests one way or the other, it could possibly be two maps on one sheet, both sides.  It might be a cataloger's judgement call.

If this is the case, editing of the record could be pretty simple.  On the other hand, if it requires much editing to make sense of a description of what was printed, it might require just making a new record.

All of this is dwelling in the gray area of cataloger's decisions.  Sometimes there is more than one potential 'right' method.



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

[log in to unmask]&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">[log in to unmask]
513-529-1726

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Rick Grapes <[log in to unmask]&cc=&bcc=&su=&body=','_blank');return false;">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I’ve got a cataloging question. 

 

I’ve found some copy cataloging that I plan on changing locally.  This is an exact record, so I’m not altering something similar.  The record describes 1 map both sides, and includes one 034 and one 255 field.  But further examination shows that the “1 map both sides” has 2 different scales.  Not even close.  Thus I’d prefer to describe these as 2 maps both sides etc. even though the 2 are north south extentions of each other, they both have the same titles within the neat line, as well as the same cover title.  Is my thinking correct, to describe these as 2 maps both sides, solely because of the differing scales, and in spite of the other similarities?  That’s my 1st question. 

Secondly, the original record included the latitude longitude coordinates in the 034 and 255, but there is no Latitude longitude info. on the map anywhere.  Zero, nichts, nada.  I have no idea where these coordinates came from, and without doing the math myself, have no idea of its accuracy.  Should I do the math and extrapolate the latitude longitude for both sides myself, inserting the additional fields?  Is it safe to distrust the original cataloging to a certain degree because of the different scales, and thus assume the latitude longitude may be incorrect also?  What is the general consensus about catalogers inserting latitude longitude when the item itself does not show such data at all?

 

Thanks,

Rick Grapes

BYU Map Collection