----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Mark,
 
The OCLC record for an earlier edition wouldn't have "GUA" on it would it?
If so, it was one I did quite awhile ago!
 
I remember struggling with this same question too, and the only maps that
it turned up with on a regular basis were some of the western U.S. National
Forests or National Grasslands. I try to follow what you've denoted in
"Cartographic Materials", that is to give the coordinates for one bounding
area that covers both mapped areas. In the Sitgreaves example you give
obviously the 300$a should have been "1 map : $b both sides, col." which
would then make giving one set of coordinates not only correct but also
provides uniformity for the description of the map as a whole.
 
If this were truly two maps then again you are correct in that two sets of
scales and coordinates should have been given using two 255 fields (and of
course two matching 034 fields). Its easy to see where one could describe
an item such as the Sitgreaves one as "2 maps", after all the map could be
used that way if necessary. So, I wouldn't rule out the record for the
earlier edition as being "incorrect", I'd just say that its description was
inconsistent.
 
Paige
 
At 04:00 PM 9/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I have encountered a map cataloging problem for which I have been unable to
>find guidance.  The map I am cataloging is Forest Service map:
>Apache-Sitgreaves national forests, Arizona.  The question I have is about
>how to record the coordinates.  The map has Apache National Forest on one
>side, Sitgreaves National Forest on the other.   The two forests are
>contiguous, sharing a short boundary at the northwestern corner of Apache
>N.F. and the eastern edge of Sitgreaves N.F.  The record I found on OCLC
>for an earlier edition than the one I'm cataloging includes one set of
>coordinates to describe the area covered by both forests.  What troubles me
>is the fact that the  physical description gives "2 maps."  To me it seems
>that if a physical items is described as comprising more than one map, that
>a set of coordinates should be given for each map.  It does seem to me that
>the contiguous nature of the area being covered on opposite sides of the
>map would allow it to be described as a single map, but the item is not
>being described that way in this record.
>
>The rule in AACR2 does not address this, and the closest I could get to an
>answer to this question is the following statement in Cartographic
>Materials: "If the map is printed in sections on one sheet, record the
>coordinates for the whole map as if it were joined."  This  leaves open for
>interpretation what to consider to be "the map."  Has anyone else
>encountered this problem, or even thought about it?  It may not occur too
>often, though I have cataloged other maps of multiple national forests
>where it may have been an issue.
>
>Mark Crotteau
>Washington State University
>Pullman, WA   <<a href="/scripts/wa-UGA.exe?LOGON=A3%3D9709%26L%3DMAPS-L%26E%3D7BIT%26P%3D218605%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252FplainTEXT%252FPLAIN%3B%2520charset%3DUS-ASCII%26pending%3D" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a>>
>
Mr. Paige G. Andrew
Maps/Nonbook Cataloger
E506 Pattee Library
Pennsylvania State University Libraries
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
<a href="/scripts/wa-UGA.exe?LOGON=A3%3D9709%26L%3DMAPS-L%26E%3D7BIT%26P%3D218605%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252FplainTEXT%252FPLAIN%3B%2520charset%3DUS-ASCII%26pending%3D" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a>
phone: 814-865-1755
fax: 814-863-7293