If endnotes reference the map then it would make sense to include it.
But as you noted, the scans are both basically illegible. If you can
find a better scan, then you can trace it to an SVG and include it; but
if not, then drop it and we can tweak the footnotes to remove mentions
to the map.
On 11/15/20 3:56 PM, Weijia Cheng wrote:
> I've just started working on the Sevastopol Sketches, and one thing I've
> noticed is that the Maude translation has a map of Sevastopol with
> story-relevant locations marked, which is also cited by them in the
> footnotes:
>
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31970017235398&view=1up&seq=42
>
> Unfortunately, the text shows up as black blobs on this map, and is
> basically illegible, and the actual map details are pretty hit-or-miss.
> I've looked around for other scans of this book/previous versions of
> this book and the clearest scan I can dig up is from this Google Books
> scan:
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ClIEAAAAYAAJ
>
> This is the "clear" map. though as you can see even this is hard to make
> much sense of:
https://imgur.com/a/EUwz23s
>
> Is there a recommendation on how to proceed with this map? It is just a
> visual aid introduced by the translators, so maybe it's not /essential/,
> but it would definitely be nice to have. I did see a suggestion in a
> previous thread discussing maps in the Grant memoir that librarians at
> the libraries holding might be able to help get clearer scans, though
> I'm not sure how well that advice will hold up in COVID times.
>
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 8:45:01 AM UTC-8 Weijia Cheng wrote:
>
> So, ultimately, I decided that I would just retranscribe the two
> stories from the proper PD version from scratch (with some slight
> help from my old version on the more complicated formatting). It's
> not as bad as it would sound; the scans and OCR for the 1916 version
> are better anyways and the stories are enjoyable enough that it's
> not too much of a bore. I expect it won't take much longer for me to
> catch up to where I was before, and my transcription speed and
> accuracy is getting better so the mistake is a bit of a wash.
>
> On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 5:07:50 PM UTC-7 Vince wrote:
>
> Right, I saw that, I was just conjecturing that the Worldcat
> entry /might/ be why
archive.org <
http://archive.org> lists the
> date as 1916 instead of 1935. But, given that the library
> entries listed under the 1916 Worldcat entry are all in fact
> 1935 versions, it would appear that the Worldcat is incorrect.
> They list the name as /Tales of Army Life/, and they have a
> separate entry for /The Cossacks…., /so the former would not
> appear to be referring to the latter.//It would just appear the
> 1916 /Tales of Army Life/ entry is incorrect; I didn’t see any
> obvious way to let anyone know that, so it will just have to
> continue being incorrect. :)
>
> (Having said all that, it still might be why
archive.org
> <
http://archive.org> has the wrong date. Perpetuating the error.)
>> Thanks, Vince. If you look at this page, it seems that /Tales
>> of Army Life/ was published in 1935 at least, although
>> it is referring to is/The Cossacks and Other Tales of the
>> Caucasus/. I will wait for Alex to weigh in. The good news is
>> that /Tales of Army Life/ seems to be mostly a reprint of
>> previous translations, so I can still dig up scans for all the
>> stories I would have transcribed from that collection.
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 9:09:39 AM UTC-7 Vince wrote:
>>
>> Although all of the links I’ve checked to libraries on
>> that 1916 edition say they’re the 1935 edition, so maybe
>> it’s Worldcat that’s confused.
>>
>>
>>
>>> <
https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=tales+of+army+life&dblist=638&fq=ap:%22tolstoy,+leo%22+%3E+yr:1916&qt=facet_yr:>,
>>> there//was an edition published in 1916, and it’s also
>>> Oxford Univ. Press, so whoever uploaded the scans
>>> probably got confused. It doesn’t look like your scans
>>> are that edition, so you’re probably right in what needs
>>> to be done. (Alex will have the definitive word.)
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 28, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Weijia Cheng
>>>> <
weijia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, I just realized today that I some wasted work while
>>>> transcribing two of the stories. I was basing my version
>>>> of "The Raid" and "The Wood-Felling" off of the/Tales of
>>>> Army Life/collection
>>>> (
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.23993),
>>>> but the publication date on Internet Archive is
>>>> deceiving--the book was actually published in 1935 but
>>>> IA says it was published in 1916. This was probably a
>>>> data entry error, though the good news is that the
>>>> stories I have transcribed from that collection are
>>>> actually in the/The Cossacks and Other Tales of the
>>>> Caucasus/collection by the Maudes, which actually was
>>>> published in 1916.
>>>> (
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.97297)
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, there are some slight differences between
>>>> these two versions. The biggest is that the 1935 version
>>>> restores some censored text that was missing in the 1916
>>>> version. There are smaller differences here and there as
>>>> well, I noticed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking the best solution might be to make my
>>>> current repo private, then clone the repo, squash all
>>>> the commits, and start a new repo with a new commit
>>>> history with all of the text corrected to the 1916
>>>> version. That way I can reuse the work I've already done
>>>> without having any non-PD text in the final repository.
>>>> Would that be a good approach to this dilemma?
>
>
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/b7225558-6d99-4e6e-b13c-e7e56d8f56c3n%40googlegroups.com
> <
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/standardebooks/b7225558-6d99-4e6e-b13c-e7e56d8f56c3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.