----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 09:48 AM 9/23/97 -0600, I wrote:
>>...It seems to me
>>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.
>>
>>Mark Crotteau
>>Washington State University
>>Pullman, WA   <[log in to unmask]>
>>
 Richard Soares replied (in part):
>
>...I would only hesitate to list as 1 map :
>both sides  & one set of coordinates if there are two titles ( one on each
>side) with separate bibliographic info.; then perhaps 2 maps on 1 sheet :
>both sides ; [two sizes] and sheet [size]   and   two sets of coordinates.
>...
>Richard E. Soares
>Geology/Geography/Map Librarian
>[log in to unmask]
>1402 HBLL
>BYU
>Provo, UT  84602
>801-378-6179
>fax 801-378-3221
>
>
 
This brings up another aspect of the description that I may be interpreting
incorrectly in relation to this question.  Cartographic Materials also
states, "coordinates are only recorded for each title given in the title
area (see 1G3)."  1G3 refers to items lacking a collective title.  In fact
the map I'm cataloging has a collective title.  The maps on each side
possess their own titles, included in a contents note, but the 245 gives
the panel title which combines the names of the two national forests almost
as if they were one ("Apache-Sitgreaves national forests").  Does this
title treatment suggest that the item be treated as one map rather than
two?  On the other hand, the fact that the maps are also individually
titled could lead to the opposite interpretation.
 
Mark Crotteau
Washington State University
Pullman, WA   <[log in to unmask]>