Okay, even though my vacation is not quite over I've got to chip in here after reading several responses/comments, many of which are on target, though Louise's suggestion to use "Scale varies" is not accurate as that supplied phrase is only to be used on a single map in which the scale changes from the center of the map going out to the periphery AND a specific range of scales is not given on the map, for instance "Scale 1:14,000 to 1:24,000." Where to start? Angie's and Susan's replies are on target. I can only surmise that at the time the record was created there was no Klokan Bounding Box tool and its optional to provide coordinates in the record unless they are on the map (LC practice) or unless you are a member of BIBCO for the maps format, in which it is required. The other way to obtain coordinates is to compare with a map (by itself or one in an atlas) that has coordinates and pull from that source. So, using the Bounding Box tool or comparing with another map of the same place both fall under the RDA instruction that Angie supplied. This sounds like a "1 map : |b both sides, color" situation to me, and for whatever reason the creator chose to show one half of it at a larger scale to make the details more visible. Using the title as a guide, if it indicates this is a map of one place, and also seeing that the map itself is of one geographic area that starts on one side of the sheet and finishes on the other side, then I would give 2 255s and 2 034s, one for each scale (though the coordinates would only need to be given once because they cover the entire geographic area concerned). Then, also denote through a 500 note what is going on, such as: 500 North half at a scale of approximately 1:XX,XX, south half at a scale of approximately 1:XX,XXX. or alternately if each half has its own title you can substitute it for "north" and "south" (or "east" and "west" if that is the case). As was mentioned by someone, if you are certain that the copy is a match the download it and add/subtract as you wish locally, but do not create a new master record and clutter up OCLC (and if you are not certain about whether its a match or not go to oclc's "When to create a new record" in the Bib. Input Standard and review what it says for the fields in dispute) Back to vacation...(actually, we're off the ship and on our way home from Baltimore as I type this) Paige From: "Angie Cope" <[log in to unmask]> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:52:39 AM Subject: Re: cataloging quesiton Regarding scales differ versus scale varies ... RDA 7.25.1.4 " If the scale within one image, map, etc., varies and the largest and smallest values are known, record both scales separated by a hyphen. If the values are not known, record Scale varies." "If the resource consists of more than one image, map, etc., and the main images, maps, etc., are of more than one scale, record Scales differ ." Paige talks about this on pages 62-63 in his new RDA book. Angie From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Ratliff, Louise <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:19 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [MAPS-L] cataloging quesiton 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/ Bounding Box Tool: Metadata Enrichment for Catalogue ... Bounding Box Tool for Metadata Enrichment Visual selection of the latitude / longitude coordinates for geotagging of a bibliographic record for cartographic documents Read more... 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! From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rick Grapes Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:16 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: cataloging quesiton 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