Hi Rick,

I’ll offer some opinions.

I would say that these are 2 maps because 1) they are on opposite sides of the sheet and 2) they have different scales.  The panel title covers them both.  Then you can have a contents note and supply titles for each of the 2 sides, enclosed in brackets to indicate they do not appear on the maps.  And also record the two scales, of course. A question though, is there some kind of marking to indicate that one is an extension of the other?  If so, maybe my next option would work.

There is another option that I probably would not use, which is to say in the 255 “Scale varies.”  This is usually applied to maps such as bird’s-eye views where there is perspective, so that the foreground is in a larger scale than the background.  I’ve never used this to describe your case, though.

Second, regarding coordinates, I often provide coordinates that are not marked on the map itself.  I use the Klokan Bounding Box tool to put a box around my region, and then read the coordinates.  This is a reasonably accurate way of providing coordinates that might be useful to the user.  So no, there is not a requirement that the coordinates in the bib record appear directly on the map.  http://boundingbox.klokantech.com/

Bottom line, though, is that you may use cataloger’s judgement in how you choose to describe your map.  It seems that the bib record you found needs to be modified according to the option you choose.  Either change the extent in the 300 field, or change the scale note.

Hope this helps!

Louise

P.S. Paige is on vacation this week, and is not connected to the internet.  Good for him!

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