Hi Michael,

I know exactly what you mean, having had the same perplexing decision many
times.  I have never had a cut-and-dried metric to follow, but generally
decide how numerous and prominent the maps are in the volume.

One thing I look at is whether the maps have a theme, such as showing the
social and economic characteristics of a given place or region.  Also, are
there many other true illustrations in the volume.  In the first case, if
the thematic maps are numerous, such as at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the pages,
then that is an atlas.  If the maps are just scattered around and are
accompanied by lots of illustrations, that is most likely a book of
“description” about a place.

In any case, if I cannot make a decision, I think about whether a user
would find the volume useful because of the maps inside of it.  If yes,
then it’s an atlas; if no, it’s a book.

Sorry that I can’t be more definitive.  In your position, I would err on
the side of “atlas”, especially if there is a bibliographic record coded
that way, and also since catalogers years ago most commonly cataloged them
as books. It will be somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t see how to avoid it.

Best,
Louise
Retired UCLA map cataloger

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:54 AM Fry, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> We're scoping out a project to re-catalog* hundreds of atlases so that
> they appear to users in search results as (Material Type=) "Map" instead of
> "Book". Our new discovery layer (ExL's Primo VE) gives users more control
> over their search results than our old OPAC, and I don't want "savvier"
> users to refine out of their own results (or skim past) resources that may
> contain useful maps merely because some, usually older atlases were
> originally cataloged as books/monographs*.
>
> I've seen a variety of tips on how to make this ("book" or "map"?)
> decision; all are variations on a theme: Do the maps support/illustrate the
> text, or does the text support/describe the maps? Or more crudely: Does the
> item contain > or < 50% maps?
>
> These are instructive but open to interpretation (and rightly so), so I'm
> struggling to come up with a consistent approach to re-typing many, many
> titles. On one hand, it's obvious to me that our Road Atlas of Malaysia is
> a "map," as is the National Atlas of Kenya; the maps are the point.
>
> OTOH, I think that any of the coffee-table-ish historical atlases done by
> Derek Hayes--all but one (!) of which appear to our users as "map"--might
> be better cataloged as "book" because the maps are so reduced that they've
> lost most or all of their cartographic utility; they are merely
> illustrations.
>
> Curious if and how any of you have approached this. Or would.
>
> Thanks very much.
> Michael
>
> ==================
> * Please pardon my imprecise use of terms throughout.
>
> --
> *Michael Fry*
> Collections Manager | Map Library Manager
> National Geographic Society Library
> 202.807.3139
> [log in to unmask]
>
> [image: Nat Geo Logo Yellow_Black.png] <http://www.nationalgeographic.org>
>
> 1145 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1145+17th+St.,+NW,+Washington,+DC+20036?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://www.nationalgeographic.org>
>
> --
Louise Ratliff
Retired UCLA Librarian