-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: US 1:250,000 maps]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:28:50 -0500
From: Mark A. Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
CC: <[log in to unmask]>
------------------
Michael,
We have two editions of many of these sheets. I decided that, although
we're tight on space, that since they don't make this series anymore
(soon to be true about all paper topos, I suspect), that it's a good
idea to keep both editions. They're usually different dates, so they
don't have the same intellectual content. Often the AMS sheets are
shaded relief editions. I figure they're all historic at this point, so
keeping the most current one only is relatively meaningless. Anyway,
there are enough differences to keep both editions, and even if they
were the same besides the margin info I'd keep the extra copies.
I think it's a judgment call whether you consider them all the same
series. The records for many AMS series have notes such as "editions
vary" or "some sheets identified as GSGS 1234" or "some sheets have blah
blah overprinting." But in this case, I think we can keep AMS and USGS
editions bibliographically distinct pretty easily, especially since
we've got significan't numbers of other series from both agencies.
AMS had it's own separate depository program at one time, as did USGS.
I don't know if any of the AMS editions ever got mixed into the USGS
depository shipments, but I'd guess not.
I'm keeping the editions in separate places although we don't have them
cataloged for now. The USGS editions are in the are with other USGS topo
series filed by name. The AMS editions are filed by the ICW-based
number, currently interfiled with all othere AMS lettered searies and
series 1501 JOG's. It's handy to have the entire world in one sequence
and use a single Series 1501 index sheet to find them, but when we get
them cataloged (we're still only very slowly cataloging material
currently classed with LC call numbers) I believe I'm going to want to
catalog as a series by each AMS series number (like we do with any other
AMS series) and assign the series an LC call number. The drawback will
be that they'll be scattered (USA is split at least between west and
east and Alaska), but maybe I could annotate the master Series 1501
index to indicate boundaries of AMS lettered series numbers and the
corresponding "G" call number. Anyone's insight on this is welcome.
--Mark
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mark Thomas / [log in to unmask] / 919-660-5853, fax:919-684-2855
Economics, Geology, Geography Bibliographer
Map and GIS Librarian / Public Documents and Maps Department
025 Perkins Library / Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0177
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johnnie D. Sutherland
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: US 1:250,000 maps]
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: US 1:250,000 maps
> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:43:42 -0500
> From: Michael Fry <[log in to unmask]>
> Organization: UMD Libraries
> To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>
> ------------------
> Subject: Alaska 1:250,000 maps
>
>
> We're a regional depository w/ two (redundant?) sets of 1:250,000 maps
> of Alaska--one printed by AMS
> and one by USGS. The quads are the same (e.g., Fort Yukon),
> but the AMS
> maps also have sheet 'codes' (e.g., "NQ 5, 6-8", etc.) Both sets are
> from the 1950's, and they seem to be based on the same data.
>
> * Are these different editions of the same series, or two
> distinct series?
>
> * Are they both considered I19.99, or just the USGS versions?
> (Were AMS
> maps classed and distributed
> to Fed'l depositories???)
>
> * Do you think there's a value (e.g., historical?) in having
> both sets?
>
|
