3B1.1 (grammatically inseparable scale statement)

Bartholomew one inch map of the Lake District. — Revised. — Scale 1:63,360

Source: CM example, but changed edition statement from "Rev." to "Revised" per info found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=R-N290nhhLUC&lpg=PA124&dq=Bartholomew%20one%20inch%20map%20of%20the%20Lake%20District%20revised%201971&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q=Bartholomew%20one%20inch%20map%20of%20the%20Lake%20District%20revised%201971&f=false

Status: Used

---

3B1.3. Scale expressed in words

(non-English example)

Scale 1:5,000

Note: Scale statement on map reads "1 millimètre pour 5 mètres"

Bib: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/494571123

Image: http://catalog.afriterra.org/zoomMap.cmd?number=1349

Status: Used 1/29/14

MT: I was able to figure this one out all by myself using Appendix J! I know it's a really super easy one, but I never catalog maps so it made me happy when I found the bib record afterwards and could confirm I'd gotten it right. 1/29/14 

 

Territorio di Cremona. — Scale 1:200,000

Note: Bar scale given as "sette miglia Italiane."

bib.: http://orbexpress.library.yale.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=10616832

image: [cannot zoom in to see scale statement clearly] Cremona

Status:

MT: Isn't this an example of 3B1.4 (a graphic expression of scale rather than a verbal scale statement)? 8/25/12

TF: Yes it is. Scratch this example; we already have enough examples for 3B1.4.

 

Scale of miles 69 1/10 to a degree

Bib: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b10540263~S6 

Status:

RB: I know we have enough examples like this, but I like this one.

 

Chaque degré de latitude est de 20 lieues françoises

Bib/Image: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b80088611
Status:

MT: The draft says we are looking for an example of scale expressed as words that uses leagues, so I looked and found this statement. It's similar to the 69 1/10 miles example Randy has proposed above in that it gives the distance represented by one degree of latitude. But, the examples of scale expressed as words that are already in the draft are different - they give a specific map measurement and a specific Earth measurement. It seems like I would have to measure the distance of one degree of latitude on the map first with a ruler before I could figure out the scale, so I'm thinking that my example and Randy's, even though they use words, really belong in 3B1.4 (scale expressed graphically) instead of 3B1.3??  2/23/14

NK: I would argue that neither of those are really scale statements. They are statements explaining the unit of measure.  So for those using the Berkeley map who don't know what a mile is, it's a unit of measure of which it takes 69 1/2 to make up a degree of latitude. For those who don't know what a lieue françoise is, it's a unit of measure of which it takes 20 to make up a degree of latitude. As Manon suggests, neither relates the map to the earth; they just relate a unit of measure to a degree of latitude on the earth. 4/28/14

---

3B1.4. Scale expressed graphically

(something other than a bar scale): 

Scale ca. 1:30,000

Note: Statement and grid squares on map used as basis for estimating representative fraction to express scale: The squares formed by the horizontal and perpendicular lines are one mile each way

catalog record: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b13560505~S1

image: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/s/072ry7

[note above not from original catalog record; probably this note could be expressed more concisely]
Status: Used 6/12/11

MT: I took at stab at expressing this more concisely; let me know if still needs work:

Note: Scale estimated based on map statement describing grid squares: "The squares formed by the horizontal and perpendicular lines are one mile each way"

 

Scale ca. 1:23,500

Note: Scale estimated using distance between concentric circles printed on map: "circles = half mile"

catalog record: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b10587178~S1

image (full map; sorry about the glare): http://www.flickr.com/photos/7321780@N05/5839555978/

image (close-up of printed circles): http://www.flickr.com/photos/7321780@N05/5839006769/

image (close-up of title, including circle statement): http://www.flickr.com/photos/7321780@N05/5839008293/

Status: Used 6/2/12

 

(bar scale):

Scale ca. 1:6,000,000

Note: Scale approximated from horizontal bar scale given in English leagues

catalog record: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b11132489~S60

image:http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g7420.ct000169

Staus: Used 6/2/12

 

Scale ca. 1:18,330

Note: Scale approximated from horizontal bar scale given in varas castellanas and tuesas de Paris

catalog record: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b11224565~S60

image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7321780@N05/5834583935/

image (bar scale close-up): http://www.flickr.com/photos/7321780@N05/5835138494/

MT: Does this count as two bar scales? If so, doesn't it belong in 3B6 (Two or more representations of scale)? 6/2/12 Seems like we don't need another example there, so assuming I can scratch this. 12/14/13

Status:

---

3B1.5

(scale statement cannot be expressed as a RF - unfamiliar unit of measurement)

Scale not determined

Note: Bar scale on map shows 50 lieues communes de Perse =​ 1 1/​2 inches
(Comment: Cataloger could not find conversion table for an unfamiliar unit of measure) 

Bib: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/38622376  

Image: http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/_zoomify/2010/D07997/a4192001.html

Status: Used 12/11/13

MT:Would this qualify as an unfamilar unit of measure not covered in Appendix J or conversion tables in standard reference sources (she asked hopefully)?? 5/13/13

TF: I think so (he answered hesitatingly). 8/2/13

MT: Not hearing any another opinions and not finding anything when I google "lieues commune de Perse", I went ahead and used it. 12/10/13

MT: Follow up: I think I found it actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_units_of_measurement (= 6km or 3.75 miles). But the way the comment is worded, I think it should be okay. It's conceivable that a cataloger might not be able to find anything and there is a limit to how much time one has to do this kind of research, right? 12/10/13

 

(scale statement cannot be expressed as a RF - imaginary unit of measurement)

Scale "one inch = 6 Texas grapefruit"

(Comment: Pictorial map of Texas, with scale represented verbally using imaginary units of measure) 

Bib: http://catalog.lib.byu.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/57/5/3?searchdata1=2348588{CKEY}&searchfield1=GENERAL^SUBJECT^GENERAL^^&user_id=WEBSERVER

Image: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/33258/Official_Texas_Brags_Map_of_North_America_Scale_One_Inch_6_Texas/Storm.html

Status: Used 12/12/13

MT: Can a grapefruit be called an imaginary unit of measure? Maybe we should say "imaginary or humorous units of measure"? 12/12/13

 

Scale "four miles = one mountain mile or 'two whoops and a holler'"

Bib: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/17010742

Status:

MT: Another "humorous" example in case we need it, but I couldn't find an image. 12/14/13

 

Scale not determined

Note: Bar scale on map given in "lieues d'amitié"

(Comment: Map of an imaginary place, with scale represented graphically using imaginary units of measure on a bar scale) 

image: http://www.kunstgeografie.nl/carte%20de%20tendre.htm

Status: Used

[note: Was going to use example from CM (1 in. = 10 leagues of love") but couldn't find an image or bib record for the map to verify how to construct the note]

---

3B1.6  (scale inaccurate) 

Scale ca. 1:63,360

Note: Scale not "1 mile to 3 inches" as stated on map. Supplied scale statement based on estimation from bar scale [or ask Randy -- 1 inch representing 1 mile distance between [... St.] and [... St.] on [Market St.?]?]

catalog record: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b11186384~S1

image: http://www.oldprintshop.com/images/large/41865.jpg

[note: expressed in existing record as: Scale [1:63,360]. Not 1 mile to 3 in. as stated on map.]
Status: Used 6/12/11
MT: I made the note say the following for the time being; Randy, please advise based on your "magic formula" for San Francisco maps:
Note: Scale estimated using bar scale on map. Scale statement on map ("1 mile to 3 inches") is not accurate 

---

3B1.7 (scale not given)

Scale ca. 1:24,400

Note: Scale estimated using distance between Steuart St. and Powell St. along Market St.

catalog record: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b11186382~S6

image:
Status: used 8/25/12; image not needed, since no transcription involved.

 

Scale ca. 1:32,000

Note: Scale from Klaus

(Comment: A separate note is used to provide a full citation for the reference to the published description in Wolfram Klaus's Pläne und Grundrisse von Städten kapitalistischer Länder Europas (1500-1850))

Status: Used

RB: In the example, do we need a comment about making a full citation to Klaus? 6/5/13

MT: I added a placeholder for this, but I don't know where this example came from. Nancy, did you provide this one? I'm assuming it is a bibliography by Wolfram Klaus, but there seem to be several. 7/1/13

NK: I think I made up the example of the particular scale, but had in mind Klaus, W. Pläne und Grundrisse von Städten kapitalistischer Länder Europas (1500-1850). 12/10/13

MT: Thanks, Nancy! I think it's okay as long as that bibliography does include scale information for some maps that lack it. I've added the comment to the example. 12/10/13

MT: Copying info Nancy provided via email: "Yes, this bibliography does include scale information for some maps that lack it." and "I found a map of Brussels, item entry no. 1880 in Wolfram Klaus Pläne und Grundrisse von Städten kapitalistischer Länder Europas (1500-1850), supplied title [Brüssel] with scale [etwa 1:32 000]." 12/10/13

---

3B3. (Not drawn to scale)

 

Nueva vista de Gibraltar : levantada sobre los mas exactos planos y modernos documentos del año de 1782 / Barte. Vazqz. la grabó. -- Not drawn to scale

(Comment: A bird's-eye view not drawn to scale)

Bib/image: http://lms01.harvard.edu/F/?func=find-b&find_code=SYS&request=011367688

Status: Used 7/8/15

---

3B4. (non-linear scale)

"1 square inch = 300,000 people"

Image: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b10272142~S1

Status: Used

 

MT: Deleted need for another example. 5/11/14

---

3B5. (vertical scale)

A geological section of the country from the neighborhood of Sandy Hook in New Jersey northward through the Highlands in... (1819)

Scale ca. 1:180,000. Vertical scale ca. 1:6,150

Note: Horizontal scale approximated from horizontal bar scale given in miles. Vertical scale approximated from vertical bar scale given in hundreds of feet

digital image: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?433931

catalog record: http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b14934196~S1

Status: Used

---

3B6. Two or more representations of scale

Regni Daniae, in quo sunt Ducatus Holsatia et Slesvicum, insulae Danicae, provinciae Iutia, Scania, Bleckingia, nova tabula, [ca. 1715]

Scale ca. 1:1,000,000

Optional note: Bar scales given in "milliaria Germanica," "milliaria Gallica," and "milliaria Danica."

Image: http://brbl-images.library.yale.edu/MAPS/size3/D0028/1276027.jpg

Bib. record: http://hdl.handle.net/10079/bibid/8203996

Status: Used 5/13/13

TF: Would we want to use ellipsis in noting the scales when leaving out the full scale statement (see image)? E.g. Bar scales given in "milliaria Germanica ...," "milliaria Gallica ...," and "milliaria Danica ...." As I understand it, it is understood (by those who understand such things) a German mile is 15 to one degree, etc. Is it necessary to quote the whole statement?

 MT: I think it's okay without the marks of omission. 6/2/12

MT: Because this example has scale represented graphically, don't we need a mandatory note saying how the scale appears on the map and how we arrived at the estimated scale (per 3.B1.4)? Would it be better to have a combined note (and a comment indicating that part of the note is optional) or two separate notes? Can someone suggest how they would word the note(s)? 6/2/12

TF: I would argue for your first suggestion (combined note). How about this:

Bar scales given in milliaria Germanica, milliaria Gallica, and milliaria Danica; scale estimated by measurement of degree of latitude.

(Comment: Recording multiple representations of scale is optional; the note on how a scale was calculated is mandatory)

This sounds a bit clunky; others are welcome to suggest other wording.

MT:  In a case such as this one, it is already mandatory to "Make a note describing how the scale is represented in the material" (per 3B1.4). So what is mandatory here? noting just one of the bar scales?? What would the note say if we weren't applying rule 3B6 and only applying 3B1.4? And what exactly is optional? providing details of the number of bar scales and the types of measurement represented in them??  9/16/12

MT: Made the comment read: (Comment: Scale is only represented graphically in the material, thus 3B1.4 requires a note on the bar scale and an indication of the basis for the scale calculation; providing additional details on the presence of multiple bar scales is optional)

 

TF: Should we also add an additional Optionally sentence under 3B6. for four or more scale statements? I.e.: Optionally, for four or more representations of scale for a single map, give statement "Includes [x] bar scales."

MT: The current rule does not specify how the note is to be constructed, so I think we could just have another example to this effect rather than adding another sentence to the rule. However, if that example is going to be "Includes 4 bar scales" or some such, we still need a mandatory note addressing how we've estimated the scale (per 3.B1.4). 6/2/12

TF: Here is an example phrasing for four bar scales given on a map:

     Includes four bar scales; scale estimated by measurement of degree of latitude.

Here is the image of the scale representations on the map (as well as a graticule with coordinates), in case we really need to look at an example.

MT: Instead of adding the example here, I added it in 7B8.1. 5/13/13

---

3C1.1 Projection also transcribed in area 1

A new and correct chart from England to Guinea : with all the tradeing part of the West Indies, according to Mr. Edwd. Wrights projection vulgarly called Mercators chart / by Saml. Thornton at the England, Scotland, and Ireland in the Minories, London. — Scale ca. 1:16,500,000 ; Mercator proj.

bib record: http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b15511380~S1

image: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?481137

Status: Used

---

3C2.1 Two projections

; Lambert conformal conic proj., standard parallels 49°N and 77°N, modified polyconic proj. north of latitude 80° 

(Comment: A map, drawn on two projections)

Status: Used

MT: added "and" before "modified" and deleted comment (per decision at ALA Annual 2013). 7/1/13

 

MT: Deleted placeholder for 2nd example (it was to have illustrated an atlas, each map in which has the same scale and is drawn on one of two projections) per decision at ALA Annual 2013. 7/1/13

---

3C2.2

; Polyconic proj.

Optional note: Some maps in Transverse Mercator proj. and Lambert conformal conic proj.

Bib: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b11204598~S60

Status: Used 1/15/16

---

3D2.2. Sexagesimal system with Greenwich prime meridian

[first three examples taken from CM]

Status: Used

MT: Added comments to make it clear which ones were illustrating small-, medium-, and large-scale maps. 12/11/13

 

Degrees only:

(W 180°—E 180°/N 90°—S 90°)

(Comment: Coordinates for a globe or a world map)
Status: Used 8/13/12

 

Supplied zeros:

(W 85⁰00ʹ--W 72⁰15ʹ/N 40⁰45ʹ--N 22⁰15ʹ)

Catalog record: http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b14915096~S1

image:  http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?434116

[note: there are some problems with this record, including the fact that the two items represented have more differences than indicated in the local notes; notably, the geographic extent differs. Also, see the "00" supplied in the westernmost longitude. That style differs from what is shown elsewhere; should it be "0" instead of "00" for the minutes?]

Status:

MT: One example is probably enough here. 3/30/14

 

(W 133°15ʹ--W 54°00ʹ/N 54°00ʹ--N 14°00ʹ)

Bib: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b16219526~S6 

(W 136°20ʹ14ʺ--W 74°20ʹ14ʺ/ N 41°00ʹ00ʺ--N 7°00ʹ00ʺ)

Bib: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b16219525~S6 

RB: The first above is probably better for this example. 6/5/13

Status: Used 3/30/14

MT: Same question as above; namely, should the supplied zeros be single digit or double digit? The 2nd and 3rd examples under rule 3D2.2 (taken from CM) both use only a single zero, so I want to make sure I understand correct practice. Our rules don't say - should they?  12/11/13

MT: Used first of the two examples above but revised to make the zeros single digit. I have not added any rules addressing the convention, just made our examples consistent. 3/30/14

MT: Added leading zeroes as needed in minutes or seconds, per group decision, 8/4/15

---

3D2.5. Coordinates not extending to neat line

(W 75⁰45ʹ--W 73⁰35ʹ/N 41⁰20ʹ--N 38⁰55ʹ)

catalog record:  http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b14922356~S1

image: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?434621

[note: map shows (W 75--W 74/N 41--N 39); do we want to require a note that tells the extent of coordinates actually enumerated on the map? or suggest a note if considered important?]

TF: I would argue not to require a note; "if considered important" is good.

Status: Used 9/16/12.

MT: Added the sentence "Make a note giving the extent of the coordinates appearing on the map if considered important" to the rule. Made note for the example say "Optional note: Coordinates on map (W 75°—W 74°/N 41°—N 39°) do not extend to neat line" 9/16/12

MT: Corrected example in draft (my fault - I entered the 2nd coordinate incorrectly as 75 degrees not 73 degrees). 4/22/14

---

3D2.6. Coordinates based on non-Greenwich prime meridians 

(W 101°-- W 65°/N 45°-- N 24°)

Note: Prime meridian: Washington.
Note: Coordinates are approximate and based on Greenwich meridian.
catalog record: http://pulse.uta.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=1327475

image of later ed.: http://luna.ku.edu:8180/luna/servlet/s/4s39d1
Status: Used 6/12/11; revised 6/2/12
MT: Should we specify Washington, D.C., in the note?

TF: I would think we would want to.

MT: Done. 6/2/12

RB: In this example, 2 notes are given. But, in a similar example at 7B8.3, this information is combined into a single note. I know that DCRM examples are not prescriptive, but do we want to pick one over the other and be consistent? 6/5/13

MT: Combined the 2 notes into a single note. 7/1/13

MT: Changed wording of note to "Prime meridian: Washington, D.C. Coordinates converted by cataloger to express longitude as measured from the Greenwich meridian" 8/2/15

 

(E 112°--E 142°/N 42°--N 22°)

Note: Prime meridians: Greenwich, Ferro, and Paris

Bib: http://lccn.loc.gov/2006627863:

Status: Used 8/2/15

 

---

3D2.7. Coordinates distorted or inaccurate

(W 76°-- W 73°/N 41°-- N 38°)

Note: Map does not show longitude grid numbers, and has printed latitude grid numbers in reverse order, with 39 shown as the northernmost parallel and 41 as the southernmost parallel.

catalog record: http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b15370104~S1

image: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/id?433742

[note: the existing catalog record does not supply coordinates in area 3 and has this note: Latitude grid numbers printed with some irregularity, upside down and in reverse order]

Status: Used 6/12/11
MT: I like your wording of the note much better Nancy! I did make a minor change to: "has latitude grid numbers printed in reverse order". Okay?

MT: changed last number in example from "38" to "39". 8/12/13 (per discussion at ALA Annual 2012)

MT: Simplified the example so that it only talks about the inaccurate latitude. Deleted any mention of the longitude not being given on the material, since that situation would be covered by 3D2.8. Note now reads "Map has latitude grid numbers printed in reverse order, with 39 shown as the northernmost parallel and 41 as the southernmost parallel" 10/11/15

 

[need C example]

MT: Need example with coordinates inaccurate, rather than a typo as in the example above. 8/12/13 (per discussion at ALA Annual 2012)

(W 135°--W 105°/ 56°--N 40°)

Note: Longitude coordinates given inaccurately.

[note: the coordinates given on the map are W 114°--W 136°)

Bib record

Image

Status:

MT: Todd, I'm just curious, how do you know the real coordinates? And how did you find the example? Anyone have any idea why the longitude coordinates on the bottom of the map, which purport to be W from Greenwich, are getting higher as you move W to E? It seems like an odd error to make. 4/22/14

TF: I approximated using Google Earth, although I probably should have merely reversed the coordinates given incorrectly on the map; thus, W 136°--W 114°. I think the map maker made a mistake and just reversed the coordinates from Greenwich (the coordinates from Washington at top are correct). Would this still qualify as an inaccurate (or better yet, distorted) coordinates or merely a mistake? 4/23/14

MT: This seems kind of similar to the first example, which has the latitude grid numbers printed in reverse order, doesn't it? 6/28/14

MT: I'm just going to delete the need for this example. It's been almost a year since we said we'd look for one. CM doesn't have any examples for this rule, at least we have one! 6/28/14

MT: Actually, I think we can use this example in 7B8.3, so copying it there. 6/29/14

---

3D2.8. Coordinates not given

(W 122⁰31ʹ--W 122⁰21ʹ/N 37⁰49ʹ--N 37⁰42ʹ)

Note: Coordinates have been approximated by comparison and are not given in the material

catalog record: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b13560505~S1

image: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/s/072ry7

Status: Used 6/2/12
MT: Do we need to say what we're comparing to?? Or at least "by comparison to another item"?

TF: I think "by comparison to another item" is good.
MT: I made it "Coordinates not present on map; approximated by comparison with another map of known coordinates". Does that sound okay? It mimics how we're doing it for scale. 6/2/12

MT: Deleted "of known coordinates" from note. 8/13/12 (per discussion at ALA Annual 2012)

(E 6⁰6ʹ--E 8⁰57ʹ/N 47⁰50ʹ--N 45⁰48ʹ)

Note: Coordinates not present on map; approximated by comparison using Google Earth

Bib

Image

Status: Used 12/11/13

MT: Added leading zeroes as needed in minutes or seconds, per group decision, 8/4/15