Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:34:26 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Organization: |
American Geographical Society Library |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: table G4362
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:25:07 -0400
From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
<[log in to unmask]>
CC: Angie Cope, American Geographical Society Library, UW Milwaukee
<[log in to unmask]>
If I recall Angie, this is true BUT I could be wrong. Perhaps Ed or
someone at LC G&M can confirm?
Paige
On 9/27/2011 9:17 AM, Angie Cope, American Geographical Society Library,
UW Milwaukee wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: table G4362
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:30:11 -0700
> From: Jon Jablonski <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> Is it true that there is not a 'Northern California' or a 'Southern
> California' region Cutter in table G4362? How can this be?
>
> Or am I missing something obvious?
>
> I realize local subdivisions typically get done locally, but I don't
> think it's just map libraries in California that have a lot of northern
> and southern California maps.
>
> --
> Jon Jablonski
> Map & Imagery Laboratory
> Davidson Library
> UC Surf Board
|
|
|