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
