collection development for government map collections

Government Publications Review, Vol. 8A, pp. 17-29, 1981 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

OF%-335X/81/010017-13SO2.00/0 Copyright 0 1981 Pergamon Press Ltd

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT FOR GOVERNMENT MAP COLLECTIONS

CHARLES A. SEAVEY Had, Government Publications and Maps Department, General Library, University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, U.S.A.

(Received June 1, 1980; accepted July 20, 1980)

Abstract-Of the maps produced worldwide 80% are published by government agencies. In developing a map collection the librarian faces problems very different from those involved in developing a documents or book collection. This article reviews those problems, and suggests a methodology for use in developing the map collection. The method suggested involves a careful analysis of the information needs of the institution and community, and an equally careful, and quantifiable analysis of the map collection proposed to meet those needs.

Maps are probably among the most valuable and least understood government publications available today. Yet, the government agencies of the world (national, state and local) account for over 80% of all maps published in a given year. The U.S. government spends around $500 million to produce over 400 different types of maps and charts, in 136,610,OOO individual copies [ 1). In fiscal year 1980 the U.S. Geological Survey will spend $206,284,000 on specific map-producing programs and approximately $200 million more on programs that will have cartographic byproducts [2]. State and local investment in mapping programs can only be guessed at, but they too produce an awesome number of maps. The Iowa Department of Transportation, for example, produces a series of detailed city maps for every inhabited place in the state, over 900 in all. They are updated on a 3 year cycle, or more often if there is new road construction. The New Mexico State Planning Division publishes a series of “Critical Area Studies” maps, based on 1:250,000 quadrangles. There are up to 21 separate feature maps for each quad. Similar examples can be found in every state.

The question becomes: How does the library deal with this ever increasing flood of knowl- edge and paper? The first section of this article will briefly review the history of government map publication, both foreign and that of the United States. The next section will deal with developing a philosophy of collection development for the government map collection. The last part of the article will look at specific actions that may be taken in an active acquisitions program. Since the vast majority of maps are government produced, the term “government” will be dropped and the article will simply refer to the “map collection.” While there is at least once instance of government maps being maintained separately from commercially produced ones, the majority of map collections are sensibly integrated.

17

18 CHARLES A. SEAVEY

The development of the government agency as a producer of maps is essentially a 19th century phenomenon. It was not until the mid 20th century that government assumed the overwhelmingly dominant position that it holds today. Prior to the 19th century, map-making was largely the province of private enterprise. The great Dutch, Italian, French, and English cartographers were operating with an eye towards the profit sheet. The rise and fall of the

various national “schools” of cartography were largely dependent upon the economic and political strength of their base of operations; thus, the leadership in map-making passed from Renaissance Italy to 17th century Holland to 18th century France, to 19th century England.

The first instance of a government becoming involved in map-making was in 18th century France. There the remarkable Cassini family worked at producing the first national survey based on complete triangulation of an entire country [3]. Royal France gave intermittant support, and the project was taken over by Republican France and completed in 1818. The Institut Geographique National (IGN), France’s national mapping agency, is the lineal descen- dent of the Cassini surveys.

In England map-making was institutionalized with the creation of the Ordnance Survey in 179 1. The Survey commenced large-scale mapping of the British Isles and finally finished the

job in 1870. The Ordnance Survey is still very much in business, producing not only topographic maps, but road maps, tourist maps, and a wide range of historical maps as well.

In the United States government, mapping got off to an early start when George Wash- ington, a surveyor himself at one time, appointed a geographer and surveyor to the Continental Army in 1777 [4]. Once the Revolution was over, government map-making evolved along two different paths, one leading to adventure and controversy, the other being of somewhat lower visibility.

The first path involved government sponsorship of, and then direct involvement in, a series of famous explorations of the North American continent that opened up the American West and produced a number of significant maps. Lewis and Clark, Zebulon Pike, Stephen Long, John C. Fremont, William H. Emory, G.K. Warren, Joseph C. Ives, and John Wesley Powell were all government explorers, and from roughly 1840 on their maps were published as government documents. Prior to the Civil War exploration was institutionalized in the Corps of Topographical Engineers, a unit of the U.S. Army. The Topographical Engineers traced its roots to a Topographical Bureau, established during the War of 1812 within the Engineer Corps. In 183 1 it became separate from and equal to its parent. The Topographical Engineers sent small bodies of highly trained men to do the first scientific mapping of the American West. Fremont, Ives, and Emory were members of the Topographical Engineers who made great contributions to mapping portions of the West. In 1857, G.K. Warren of the Topographical Engineers produced the first comprehensive and geographically correct map of the country west of the Mississippi. After that map, all else was “merely filling in the detail” [5]. The Topographical Engineers were merged back into the Corps of Engineers early in the Civil War and passed into history.

After the war, four government agencies were formed and charged with mapping various segments of the West. All had variations of the words “geographical” and/ or “geological” in their titles. The areas covered were the Rocky Mountains, the Territories, the 40th Parallel, and the area west of the 100th meridian. It is readily discernible that a great deal of overlap was possible, and in fact, charges of “claim jumping” were occasionally raised by the directors of the various surveys. This intermural warfare ended in 1879 with the formation of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Other agencies and men were involved in producing maps from places as varied as Brazil (two Navy officers), the Pacific Ocean (a full fledged naval expedi- tion), and the Crimean War (a special Army commission studying”the Art of War in Europe”).

Government map collections 19

The other path did not involve heroic exploration or great names, but it may in the long run have been the more significant path. Basic mapping of the land and coastal areas of the United States was required for land development and navigation of seaborne commerce. The Land Ordinance of I785 set forth the basic method for dividing public lands into one-mile squat@& The General Land Office and its successor, the Bureau of Land Management,‘the agencies charged with this task, can trace their roots to the 1790s. Year after year, they contracted out, or did directly, the basic “platting” or dividing the land into townships, ranges, and one-mile squares as the frontier moved westward. Their maps, usually published in annual reports, were heavily used by the rapidly burgeoning commercial cartgographic industry in the 19th century.

Sailors as well as settlers needed maps, and two government agencies filled this need. The Coast (and Geodetic) Survey, dating from 1807, provided charts of coastal areas, while the Navy had responsibility for deep-water areas, and produced charts from 1830 onwards.

The formation of the Geological Survey in 1879 ushered in a new phase of scientific mapping of the land. Not only the surface but the mineral resources below the surface became matters of national interest and federally produced maps. The Survey inherited all the data and material from the four post-war surveys, so it was not a case of starting everything from scratch. Although topographic mapping was not mentioned in the authorizing legislation (20 Stat. 394), it soon became evident that such mapping was necessary as a base for geologic work. As time passed, the general usefulness of topographic maps had made their production a major activity of the survey. Topographic maps started appearing in the late 1880s. By 1900,28% of the country had been surveyed and over 100 new maps were published that year, a figure double that of the previous year, which was to double again in 1901 [6].

Limited geological mapping commenced early on in the Survey’s history. The Survey’s first publication was Clarence E. Dutton’s Tertiary History of the Grand Cunyon, (USGS Mono- graph #2) in 1882, the atlas of which included geologic and topographic maps based upon work done by John Wesley Powell’s Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region. Other series of publications, all containing maps to a greater or lesser degree, soon commenced, and the Survey was on its way to becoming the major federal producer of maps.

The Survey was authorized to sell maps in 1897 (29 Stat. 201). The same legislation stated that the Director was authorized to “distribute gratuitously” up to 500 copies of each map Jr atlas to “such educational institutions or libraries as may be designated by the Director.** Thus was born the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) depository system which created the nucleus of most map collections in academic and large public libraries. It is worth noting that the depository system is still operating on the same ground rules, 83 years later.

Other agencies continued to be involved in producing maps. The Bureau of Land Manage- ment, the Forest Service, the Post Office, the Weather Bureau, and many others published maps after the formation of USGS, and do so to this day.

After World War II, another federal agency became responsible for a great expansion of map collections. The Army Map Service (AMS) depository program grew out of the fact that the U.S. was totally unprepared, cartographically speaking, for the events of 1939-1945 [7]. Presented with a two-front war in 1941 the military establishment discovered that it had virtually no large-scale maps of the ground over which it intended to do battle. The University of Chicago’s set of 1:25,000 maps of Germany suddenly became a “national security*’ item! Other universities and map collections soon became involved in supporting the war effort. Academic geographers and cartographers suddenly found employment in the Office of Strategic Service (OSS), or deep in the labyrinth of the Pentagon. Civilian map collections provided the military with the cartographic resources necessary to prosecute the war while the military geared up its own map-making establishment. At the end of the war, the Army found


itself with a vast number of maps, both captured and Army-produced, and not really much need for them. Partly out of gratitude to the academic community, and partly out of a desire to divest itself of the maps, the Army established the AMS depository program for roughly 200 academic and public libraries. Map collections whose nucleus was USGS material found the scope of their collections now made international by another government depository program.

The AMS program became the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) program in the early 1970s. The program had had its ups and downs and by the 1970s had become a pale shadow of its former self. As the academics who joined during the war left federal service, and as the academic world grew increasingly antimilitary during the 196Os, a gulf widened between the once closed communities. The DMA depository program is still carried on, but is almost more a hinderance than a help in collection development. All the large scale maps have long since ceased to be distributed, and no replacements are in sight. DMA shipments contain maps often unrelated to one another, and selection for depository distribution seems to be based more on military surplus than on any coherent program. DMA has reached the point where it will barely acknowledge the existence of depository librarians, and reasonably complex queries are answered with brief and largely unhelpful statements couched in militaryese.

Other agencies also have depository programs. The National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Ocean Survey (NOS) distributes hundreds of aeronautical and nautical charts in a variety of scales and formats. A number of agencies distribute their cartographic products through the Government Printing Office (GPO); the Census Bureau with its colorful series of demographic maps (the GE 50s) is a prime example. Checking GPOs current list of classes will show that there are currently 22 item numbers specifically identified with maps.

Throughout the rest of the world, it is nearly universal practice that it is the government which produces the large scale, detailed maps upon which commercially produced maps are based. In New Zealand for instance, there is virtually no private map-making-everything is produced by the Department of Lands and Survey. In the old colonial areas of the third world, mapping is often done with the assistance of the original colonial power. Thus maps of Kenya and India bear a heavy family resemblance to Ordnance Survey products, while maps of Algeria and Morocco resemble those produced by the IGN.

In the U.S. and overseas, therefore, the map collection developer will be dealing with government agencies for the vast bulk of the maps desired. Map keepers have precious little literature to guide them in their efforts at developing a coherent collection out of the vast number of maps, government and commercial, that are available. There has been a great deal written about acquisitions (how to), but not much about goals, levels of depth, areas of coverage (what and why). The 1959 “Standards for College Libraries” [8] mentions the word “map” once in a general discussion of library collections. While other material-newspapers, AV, etc.-receive some extended discussion, maps do not. The 1975 “Draft Standards for College Libraries 1975 Revision” [9] does not mention maps at all in either the proposed standards nor the lengthy commentaries. “Draft-Standards for University Libraries” [IO] of 1978, are similarly silent on the subject. There is no cartographic equivalent of Books for Coiiege Libraries, and even the otherwise excellent Map Librarianship [ 1 l] does not offer much specific guidance on developing collection goals and objectives.

If the standards do not even offer a starting point, what of the literature? Acquisitions articles abound [ 121, but those that give consideration to the thought processes that must be undertaken for serious collection development are few. There are three articles that deserve mentioning because to a certain extent they address the question of collection development, as opposed to mere acquisition.


Ian Mumford in asking “What is a Map Library?” [ 131, tangentially discusses some of the thoughts that go into collection development. He writes of the necessity for the map library to have a “purpose.” What he fears is “that the purpose of map libraries is obscured by tradition in many cases, undefined in real terms in most cases, ineffective in large measure, and as such wasteful of money and resources“ [ 141. This statement is even more applicable to 1980 America than it was to 1966 Britain. The article is becoming dated but is worth looking at simply for the questions it raises about what is now called collection development.

An article dealing with a specific library, but by extrapolation having general application, is Carlos Hagen‘s “The Establishment of a University Map Library” [ 151. The article covers the waterfront in terms of a map collection, including sections on materials in the “Map Library,” “Initial Acquisitions,” and “Area of Emphasis.*’ While aimed at the then soon-to-be- established map collection at the University of California at Santa Cruz, the points made are important in showing the kind of thinking one should go through in developing a map collection. Few, if any, will get the chance to start a large map collection from scratch, as was the case here, but the analysis process can and should be applied to existing collections.

Alberta Koerner (Wood) writes on “Acquisition Philosophy and Cataloging Priorities for University Map Libraries [ 161. If the words “Collection Development” are substi- tuted for “Acquisitions” in a few key places, this is a very coherent statement of “why” such a policy. “A unified, well defined acquisition philosophy is essential to the effective development of the University Map Library“ [ 171. Koerner then covers general aspects of developing such a philosophy and discusses a number of points one must consider along the way. Her point (and that of this author) is that map collections should not develop simply because the maps are available, but in response to a predetermined philosophy that contains both goals for, and limjtations on, the eventual shape and depth of that collection.

In developing a map collection it is imperative that some thought be given to goals and objectives specifically developed for maps prior implementation of the program. Simply adapting book practices to the map collection will not work. A strict, “bookman’s”approach to maps will almost inevitably lead to disaster for the map collection. It is only the advent of automated data processing techniques in the cataloging world that has rescued maps from the morass they were in due to the attempt to use book cataloging principles for their bibliographic control.

One has to consider the differences between the two formats. While maps individually are not expensive, collectively they can get that way very quickly. Further they require a great deal of “overhead” funding specifically to support them. Virtually every other print format will fit

on standard library shelving-maps do not. Other print formats generally can be used at one standard reader sized “seat’‘-maps require considerably more space. Entire pages of standard formats fit on the copying machine, maps do not-and furthermore, a great deal of their information is color coded and of course is lost in the copying process. Other formats can be compacted through the use of micro-processing without loss of usefulness-maps, except in limited instances, cannot be microformed without severely degrading their usefulness. Access tools for print formats are widely standardized and well understood by patrons-such is not the case for maps. The whole language of map terminology differs from other formats: scale, projection, contour interval, relief, isolines, hypsometric tinting, and coordinate systems are but a few of the things that must be understood by the map keeper. Reference service with maps is far more an interpretive science than reference service with other print media: anybody can read a book-not everybody can read a map.

Obviously maps have to be recognized as a special format whose cycle of existence in the library creates special problems and costs at virtually every turn. Hence, the map collection


should not be allowed to grow like Topsy lest it become an unwarranted drain on library resources and destroy its own potential as an information source. On the other hand, it is vital that library administrations be convinced of the worthiness of maps as an information source equal in value to books, journals, newspapers, etc. It is much easier to convince with specific, quantifiable objectives, than with vague generalizations, such as: “We should have some maps in the library.”

Several criteria must be considered in developing a collection development policy for the map room. Some criteria are the same as those that must be applied to any collection development policy; others are unique to maps. While every library should have a core collection of local state, and national maps [ 181, specific areas desired and depths of collection will vary. Factors that must be considered are: 1. Type of Institution and Clientele

A. Institutional Analysis-Although variations will exist, the two items are virtually inseparable. Junior colleges, four-year institutions, large public libraries, institutions granting graduate degrees all have different clientele and different requirements. The academic curricula must be considered in relation to the overall goal of the institution. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this kind of institutional analysis. Does a four-year institution really need a map collection of over 100,000 sheets? Conversely a university (Ph.D.-granting) with a collection much smaller than that is probably not doing an adequate job in cartographic support of research. If the library cannot exist in a vacuum, without considering its clientele, the map collection must be doubly cognizant of its users. A junior college may have course titles similar to that of a university, but the overall goal is somewhat different. Further, the general course emphasis will differ from institution to institution. Liberal arts schools with a smattering of science, have different requirements than do agricultural and technical schools. All of this may seem painfully obvious, but it is equally obvious from holdings of some map collections that these factors simply were never taken into account in developing the collection [ 191.

B. Actually create a profile of the library’s user pool. One method is to assign LC class numbers to course listings in the catalog to locate the areas of instructional emphasis. Another is to use enrollment figures by academic major to see where the weight of student hours are. A public library will, or should have done some kind of community analysis of user groups, both immediate and potential. “Potential” becomes important in developing a map collection. Once local business and government agencies find out there is a map collection available, they will want to use it; certain user groups may not be immediately obvious and require some thought and research to identify. What kinds of businesses dominate the area? What is the general ethnic background of the area? In Iowa maps of Germany and Scandinavia get a lot of use; in New Mexico they get none. There are a number of different approaches and methods one can use for this kind of profile building. Often what will emerge simply confirms what intuition and experience suggests. Surprisingly, one may frequently find something startling.

2. Information Needs of the Institution and Clientele More institutional analysis is required here. As an example, a Professor in Geography is doing in-depth research on the question of the development of the borders of Israel. This requires one kind of response on the part of the map collection: e.g., collecting large scale topographic maps of the area produced not only by Israel but neighboring states, the British during their administration of the area, and the international organizations that have operated there as well. In another case, the History Department might have a long standing commitment to excellence in American history, or there might be an Institute of


Architecture and Urban Planning in the locale. These require other kinds ofresponses e.g.,

an indepth collection of maps of the U.S. both in original and facsimile, or city maps showing the growth and development of particular cities over a long period of time.

Particularly in larger institutions, one has to grapple with the ephemeral criteria of “research interests.‘* Only the mammoth map collections can even pretend to compre- hensiveness. Others have to look at overall research trends and try to build a collection that will provide adequate support for those trends. Developing a map collection in this atmosphere is a perilous task. Knowing what cartographic products will be needed 10,20, 50 years from now is an inexact science. One has to employ intuition and use his/ her best judgment because the maps are available now, and probably will not be then. Books can be, and are, reprinted, if they turn out to be valuable for some new trend in research. Rarely, if ever, are great numbers of maps reprinted, especially the “simple” topographic map which is only now starting to be recognized as a major research tool [20].

3. Other Institutional Factors A. Other map collections on campus (or in town if one is a public library). Do the

Geography or Geology Departments maintain separate collections, and if so to what depth and purpose? Generally speaking, both these departments will have “teaching sets” of maps for classroom and lab use in physical geography, geomorphology and similar courses. If either department maintains a more in-depth collection this must be taken into account. It should be stated that the maintenance of a general map collection, broadly based in subject content and geographic area, by a specific academic department should be avoided by these departments. Use of maps is not, and should not, be restricted to geographers or earth scientists. Maps are too multidisciplinary to be located in large quantities outside of the general library.

B. Level or language exercise in the user population. A good collection of Russian thematic maps is absolutely useless if the clientele contains only one person who can read Russian. Furthermore, how are they to be cataloged?

Up to this point the article has developed theoretical criteria based solely on information needs of the possible clientele. There are also practical considerations. Ideally, one should not have to consider such mundane matters as funds and space: There is an information need-the library will provide material to fulfill that need. Unfortunately it does not work that way. One has to be prepared to make some trade-offs. Fortunately, trade-offs with maps are fairly easy to determine. Unlike the “quality” of a book, the quality of a map can, at least in part, be quantified and fairly definitive statements about the number of maps needed can be made.

A major factor in determining quality of a map is its scale. The scale determines how much detail, or information, can be carried on a given map. The larger the scale the more detail. Scale is usually expressed as a representative fraction (RF), such as 1:24,000, or 1:250,000. A 1:24,000 map is one twenty-four-thousandth as large as the area of the earth that it portrays. A 1:250,000 map is a one two-hundred-and-fifty-thousandth as large as its area. Hence 1:24,000 is a larger scale than 1:250,000 since I/ 24,000 is a larger fraction than l/ 250,000. As scales get smaller, more and more ground area can be shown without increasing the size of the paper the map is printed on. On the other hand, what one gains in increased area, one loses in amount of detail, or information content. As the map-maker increases the area shown, sl he has increasingly to generalize the data for that area. So given equal size pieces of paper, a 1:250,000 map will show IO+ times the area a 1:24,000 map will. While it takes only 22 sheets to provide 1250,000 mapping of New Mexico, it takes over 1,500 to map the state at 1:24,000. While one cannot, with precision, say that a 1:24,000 map has ten times as much detail as a 1:25,000 map, one can say that information is a great deal more detailed at the larger scale. On 1:24,000 maps


individual houses can be depicted, and large buildings actually identified by shape. On 1:250,000 maps this is impossible. The more detail or information desired, the larger scale of map which must be obtained, the more actual pieces of paper which must be bought, stored and made accessible.

This theme may be repeated for every country, not only for topographic maps, but thematic, or subject maps as well. Most countries are mapped at a number of scales. Currently, the U.S. Geological Survey has seven series that either intend to, or do, map the entire U.S.: 1:24,000, 1:25,000, 1:50,000, 1: 100,000, 1:250,000, 1:500,000, 1: 1 , 100,000. Other nations have similar or greater scale ranges. Thematic maps like soil maps or geologic maps will often be available at various scales or levels of generalization.

This is the point where the practical trade-offs begin. Does the library have money and room to provide complete topographic mapping of the U.S. at 1:24,000? There are over 63,000 maps required to provide that coverage. If, however, one is willing to trade the greater information content for fewer maps, large scale coverage can be provided only for one’s own state or region, but it is necessary then to rely on smaller scale mapping for the rest of the country. If the total number of soil survey maps for a given country turns out to be mind-boggling, perhaps the state or regional maps at a somewhat smaller scale will do instead.

This is where the collection developer dealing with maps has the advantage over the bookman. The total number of maps either topographic or thematic, to cover a given area at a given information level can be readily determined. Number of map cases, square footage necessary, and a number of other factors can be worked out in advance with some precision if the map collection developer cares to do so. This is, of course, subject to variables. An agency may decide that more and different map series are needed [ 2 11. Conversely a map series may start, but never finish. In less politically stable areas of the world one cannot with absolute certainty predict that a given map series will ever be completed. It should be apparent, however, that the map-keeper can forecast with rather more accuracy than the bookman can. Given this advantage, a collection development/acquisitions policy can be worked out in more quantifiable terms than a similar policy for books.

Now, the collection developer must try and arrive at a happy balance between information needs and available resources to meet those needs. If resources can be found to adequately meet needs, then there is little problem. If, however, meeting the needs would require a collection of maps far too large to handle either fiscally or physically then the fine art of compromise comes into play. As suggested earlier, the number of sheets to be purchased and maintained can be reduced ifone can settle for the information loss required. This is probably the most difficult phase of map collection development, and the one most likely to be affected by local conditions. Resources, in terms of money and space, are becoming rare commodities in today’s libraries. Virtually every library has its tales of serials cuts, smaller pay raises, and over- crowding due to lack of new capital for building expansion. It is in this milieu that the map collection developer must do battle for an information format that is often not understood or appreciated by the generally bookish people running libraries [22]. The author submits that doing the kind of information needs analysis suggested, and presenting one’s case in as quantified a form as possible makes the struggle for resources easier. If compromise is necessary,partially fulfilling an information need is better than not fulfilling it at all. Defeat in fighting for an ideal does not do patrons any good. The wise collection developer will try to make the best deal possible for them and if it requires compromise, so be it.

Having considered all possible criteria, both theoretical and practical, and having arrived at a workable compromise between perceived information needs and resources available to meet those needs, where do we go from here? A collection development policy for maps comes in two


parts. First, is a textual statement of goals and objectives, along with a fairly detailed analysis of the rationale for those objectives: “We will collect in-depth mapping of Great Britain because. . . .” This not only forces one to justify the collection to oneself, but makes it easier to justify to fiscally tight administrators. An example of a specific statement might be “mapping of Great Britain because: (1) the History Department is strong in English history, (2) Professor Lewllyn-Smythe is researching a major monograph on land tenure in England, (3) the Earth Science Department is particularly interested in estaurine areas and the British have developed their extensively. . . .”

The second part of a collection development policy for maps can be presented in a matrix format that shows and, as far as possible, quantifies objectives. Using a matrix such as the one suggested in Figure 1, it is possible to build a very detailed profile of the kinds of mapping desired for a given area. The subject breakdown is derived from the LC”G” schedule [23]. The various levels of collection depth and notes are illustrative of possibilities only, and do not represent an actual policy.

Variations on the matrix are possible, and probably desirable. The intention here is to present an idea, not a final product. Any of the main subject subdivisions can be refined considerably. “Physical Sciences” for instance has 44 subdivisions, “Forests and Forestry,** six.

Individual countries might require somewhat different treatment. British maps, once they get smaller than 1:500,000 tend to cover the whole country, so such a detailed thematic breakdown, except for the subjects which have large scale mapping available, might be necessary. The United States with its huge area and multiplicity of publishing agencies- national, state, local-will require a much more complex chart, or series of charts, one dealing with national map series, another with maps published by each state, and so forth. The main point of the exercise is to apply much the same degree of analysis to the proposed collection as to the information needs which one intends to serve with it. Filling out the formsjustifies needs to oneself, thereby making them easier to justify to administrators. There is no substitute for preparation.

Preparation does not stop with the initial effort, however. The collection developer has to be aware of changing conditions in institutional objectives and the surrounding community. Consider, for instance, the institutional changes in higher education since 1968, or demographic changes in Wyoming since the early 1970s. Those changing conditions mean lesser or greater demands on the resources of the collection, or substantial qualitative changes. A needs analysis requires constant monitoring with changing requirements entered into a feedback loop to modify the collection development to meet the new situation.

Having spent some time thinking about what one is going to buy, and why, then how does one set about it? As mentioned above the literature abounds with acquisition articles, and it is not necessary to recapitulate everything said therein. There are some points which collection developers, as opposed to collectors, should probably keep in mind, and they will be covered below. Just because a map, or a lot of maps, are free, does not always mean one should grab them. A

great deal has been said about the collection building benefits of attending the annual Library of Congress (LC)“Summer Project.” Basically one’s institution pays them to go to LC to work for a specified number of weeks, and LC repays that institution by letting those in attendance take maps from the duplicates stacks. There are some institutions who center their whole collection building effort on the summer project. There are some advantages, it is true. But remember, there are rejects and random sets or partial sets of duplicates here. Does one’s institution need a 1:50,000 set of 1930 Japanese language maps of Honshu? The same principles should be applied to this source that are applied to every other source. Although many good

Are

a: G

reat

Bri

tain

Sca

le

No

. sh

eets

C

ove

rag

e R

eten

tio

n

Acq

uis

itio

n

Han

dlin

g

TO

PO

GR

AP

HIC

1:

25,0

00

80

Lon

don

All

editi

ons

Coo

k,

Ham

mon

d &

C

at.

and

clas

s by

ci

ty,

Bir

min

aham

K

ell.

stan

dina

or

der

incl

ude

inde

x m

aps

1:50

,oo

a 20

4 C

om

ple

te

All

editi

ons

Coo

k,

Ham

mon

d &

C

at.

and

clas

s-in

dex

map

Kel

l. st

aodi

na

orde

r

i:lo

o,o

oo

1:20

0,o

oo

1:25

0,00

0 14

C

ompl

ete

Cur

rent

on

ly

Coo

k,

Ham

mon

d &

C

at.

and

clas

s-in

dex

map

Kel

l. st

aodi

na

orde

r

1:5w

,oo

o

7 C

ompl

ete

curr

ent

only

1:1,

oo

o,O

oa

4 C

ompl

ete

Cur

rent

on

ly

Coo

k,

Ham

mon

d &

C

at.

and

clas

s-in

dex

map

Kel

l, st

andi

ng

orde

r

Th

emat

ic

Sca

le

No

. sh

eets

C

ove

rag

e A

cqu

isit

ion

H

and

ling

Mat

hem

atic

al G

eog

rap

hv

Ph

ysic

al S

cien

ces

geo

log

ic

Bio

aaoa

raoh

v

1:20

b,0

00

20

Com

plet

e A

ll St

anfo

rds

Cat

. an

d cl

ass

Hu

man

& C

ult

ura

l

Po

litic

al G

aoo

rao

hv

Eco

no

mic

Geo

gra

ph

y

Min

es &

Min

eral

Res

ou

rces

1:

100

.000

11

2 C

omol

ete

All

Ag

icu

ltu

re

1:50

,000

10

2 E

ng

lan

d o

nly

AU

H

ome

offi

ce

Fo

rest

rv

Aq

uat

ic B

iolo

gic

al R

eso

urc

es

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g &

Pro

cess

ing

. Ser

vice

In

du

stri

es

Tec

hn

olo

gy,

En

gin

eeri

ng

, P

ub

lic W

ork

s

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n

& C

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Var

ious

R

oad

map

s E

xam

ples

on

5

year

cy

cle

Mai

ling

list

Ver

tical

fi

les

Co

mm

erce

an

d T

rad

e

Mili

tary

& N

aval

Geo

gra

ph

y

His

tori

cal

Geo

gra

ph

v p

re- 1

900

Var

ious

C

ompr

ehen

sive

Var

ious

Fig

. 1.

Exa

mp

le o

f p

rofi

le o

f d

esir

ed m

aps

for

Gre

at B

rita

in


maps come out of the LC summer project, there is also much of limited value. The four or five mammoth academic collections are probably justified in collecting everything they can. Everybody else should be more careful in their selection process.

The same thought applies to the depository programs offered by various agencies. If, for instance, the library’s needs profile suggests that there is a need for medium or small scale nautical chart coverage of the east coast, do nor request depository status from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) without investigating first. NOAA publishes thousands of nautical charts in a variety of scales and formats. It is false economy to acquire hundreds of basically unneeded maps which one must then catalog, provide room for, and discard once new editions come in, simply to get the charts which are needed for free.

This leads to an old cliche: “There is no substitute for money.” To develop a quality collection, one has to spend money, and there is no substitute for it. It behooves the collection developer then, to spend the money as judiciously as possible. This in turn brings us to the subject of jobbers.

Basically there are none, at least none that operate on the scale that book jobbers do. There are no approval plans, and few blanket orders. There are unkept promises, and there is tremendous expense. Every time one orders a large set of topographic maps from a large map jobber in Germany, they are: (I) paying for the map and paying for them to send it, (2) converting U.S. dollars into Deutsche marks, which is an expensive proposition, (3) paying postage for the maps to go from the country of origin and then from Germany to the library. Now consider this: Where does the jobber get the maps? In 99% of the cases they are bought from the official mapping agency of the country which the library is interested in. Why not eliminate the middle man? The U.S. Geological Survey publishes a list of every official mapping agency in the world [24]. It is complete with addresses and often names. It is right in the documents collection at I 19.4/4:771, and is updated periodically. A letter requesting current catalogs and price lists to every agency in the book will produce the most amazing response one could wish for. Most mapping agencies are only too happy to sell their product, and they let it be known how they do so. Getting on their mailing lists for updated catalogs is

equally easy. Once the library has, for example, bought Great Britain complete as 1:50,000, is the library’s

responsibility over for that country and scale? Most mapping agencies update their maps on a regular basis. It .makes no sense to make a one-time purchase of a large set and then not maintain it buy buying new sheets as they come out. If updating is not done, in 10 years one has an obsolete collection of maps and must start over again. Most government agencies do not allow for standing orders for revised maps. However, there are ways of doing this with some countries. The British Ordnance Survey sells its maps through an agent, Cook, Hammond and Kell[25], who will let you establish a standing order, and the Canadian topographic series are available through North Star Media [26] on a standing order basis. Other national mapping agencies may have agents or arrangements. Once it has been determined to maintain their product, ask them.

Map acquisition is far from the relatively simple business that book acquisition is. The map collection developer has to keep up with the professional literature of map libraries, geography, geology, and related disciplines, in order to keep up with what is being published and what the latest tricks of the trade are. Map Librarianship; the Special Libraries Association (SLA), Geography and Map Division, Bulletin; the Western Association of Map Libraries (WAML) Information Bulletin; and the acquisitions lists of the various major map collections are just the bare beginnings of required reading. Each collection developer should formulate a list of journals regularly checked for cartographic news in a given area or subject of interest.


Attendance at meetings of ALA, SLA and WAML will also produce a tremendous amount of information usable in map acquisitions.

Map librarianship is an intense field that requires much of its practitioners. Developing a philosophy or framework for collection development is certainly one of the most intellectually demanding exercises that a map librarian can go through, but in the long run, it will pay off in a quality collection tailored to meet the information needs of a given institutioh and clientele. It will also pay off in helping the map librarian to better articulate those information needs and the bredth and depth of the collection proposed to meet those needs.

REFERENCES

I.

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

10. II. 12.

Radlinski, W.A. Federal Mapping and Charting in the United States. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Cartography, University of Maryland, College Park, Md, July 26, 1978. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Press Release, December II, 1979. Lister, Raymond. How to Identifv Old Maps and Globes. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1965, p. 30. Most of the historical material on U.S. government map making is taken from various articles this author has published. See in particular “Maps as Documents/Documents as Maps,” Special Libraries Association, Geography and Map Division BuNetin (SLA G&MD Bulletin) No. 112, June 1978; and the “Mapnews” column, Dttp, 7 (November 1978). 223. For a more in-depth treatment see two books by Goetzmann, William H. Army Exploration in the American West, 1803-1863. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959; and Exploration and Empire; the Explorer and the Scientist in the Winning of the American West. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wheat, Carl 1. Mapping the American West, 1540-1857. Reprinted from the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, April 1954. Worcester, Mass.: The Societv. 1954, o. 165. Mate&l relatingtdthe beological Survey is largely drawn fromits Ann&l Reports of the period in question. Also useful is Agnew, Allen F. The LI.S. Geological Survey. Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Print. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1975. The section on AMS/DMA is largely drawn from: Larsgaard, Mary. Map Librarianship. Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Larsgaard); and Hagen. Carlos. “Map Libraries and the Armed Services,” Western Association of Map Libraries (WAML) Information Buh’etin, 9 (November 1979). Larsgaard is must reading for anybody contemplating running a map library. College and Research Libraries, July 1959, p. 276. College and Research Libraries News, December 1974, p. 284. College and Research Libraries News, April 1978, p. 89. Larsgaard (7 above). There is little point in citing an endless list of articles. The main sources are the SLA, GM&D Bulletin, the WAM L Information Bulierin. Special Libraries, the Drexel Library Quarterly of October 1973, and Low, Jane Grant- MacKay. “The Acquisition of Maps and Charts Published by the United States Government,” University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science Occasional Paper, No. 125, November 1976. Of particular importance are the acquisitions lists of the large university map collections. The best review of how to get at all this material is in Larsgaard.

13. Mumford, Ian. “What is a Map Library,” Cartographic Journal, 3 (June 1966) 9-l I. 14. Ibid., p. 9. 15. Hagen, Carlos. “The Establishment of a University Map Library,” WAML Information Bulletin, 3 (October 197 I).

Although published in 1971 this article was written as a consultants report in 1965. 16. Koerner, Alberta. “Acquisition Philosophy and Cataloging Priorities for University Map Libraries,” Special

Libraries, 18 (November 1972), 51 I-516. 17. Ibid., p. 511. 18. This writer has outlined a bare minimum collection in the New Mexico Library Association Newsletter, 7

(December 1979). and a forthcoming article in School Library Journal. He is currently working on developing suggesred map collections for’institutions up to the master’s granting level. It might not be that specific cores can be

19. suggested for institutions granting the Ph.D. There are simply too many variables at that level. The readers may draw their own inferences from this statement. The author has been responsible for two academic map collections, but is reasonably familiar with a number of others.

20. Kersten, Earl W. “The Obsolete Topographic Map as a Research Document,” WAML Information Bulletin, 10 (March 1979), 147-149.

21. The U.S. Geological Survey has decided in the last several years that a number of new series are called for. Since 1975 the agency has introduced the 1:100,000 quadrangle-based series, the 1:50,000 and 1:100,000 county-based series, the 1:25,000 metric series to replace the 1:24,000 series, major modifications to the 1:250,000 series, and a proposed 1:50,000 quadrangle series to be co-produced with DMA.


22. U.S. Library of Congress. Class G. Geography. Maps. Anrhropology. Recreation (4thed.). Washington, D.C.: The Library, 1976.

23. U.S. Geological Survey. Worldwide Directory of Narional Eurrh Science Agencies Circular 771. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1979.

24. Very little has been written about this aspect of map librarianship. For some thoughts on the subject see: Cobb, David A. “The Politics and Economics of Map Librarianship,” SLA, G&MD BuNerin, No. I 17, September 1979. Cobb is writing on the politics of the profession too, but by and large his comments are valid.

26. Cook, Hammond and Kell Ltd., 22-24 Caxton Street, London SW I, England. 26. North Star Media, 1 IO Langton Road, London, Ontario, Canada NSV 2M I.