By the way, I applaud you adding the 500 note in Option 2, that may be helpful for a user to know but at least it will help other catalogers by seeing exactly what it says on the map when they are deciding on matching copy to use!


Paige

From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Nancy Kandoian <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cataloging question for scale with decimal point
 
I'd also use option 2, because with option 1, the unusual look might be confusing to users; they might wonder if there was a typo involved.

Nancy

--


Nancy A. Kandoian
Librarian

Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal Map Division


The New York Public Library
Stephen A. Schwarzman Building

476 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
212.930.0586 | x20586

nypl.org






On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:05 AM Andrew, Paige G. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'd use Option 2 myself. In such cases I round up or down, thankfully it is rare.


Paige

From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Angela R Cope <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 9:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Cataloging question for scale with decimal point
 
I have a map that includes the scale as a representative fraction and with a decimal(see attached photo) as 1/41436,6. This is an 1891 Russian government nautical chart.

I calculated the scale and the 414,363 is approximately correct.

The MARC record will not allow me to list the scale in the 034 as 414363.6.

Possible options as I see it:

Option 1
034  414363
255 Scale 1:414,363.6

Option 2
034 414364
255 Scale approximately 1:414,364.
500 "Masshtabʺ 1/414363,6 ... ."


How would you catalogers handle this?

Thanks.

Angie