--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "pete2784west" <
petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> Funny, the decree from 1998 does not mention the 306,9 m from the
> border marker 1.
whoops
you are right
& i thought thats where you were quoting it from
hahaha
but the text in message 12459 states no such distance
er
so where did you get that number from then
but anyway
lets not get bogged down over that detail
because we dont seem to need it anyway
& the text does seem to give us all we do need
but please notice that tho it carefully defines the line of
delimitation of the boundary water areas of the 3 countries
it speaks in terms of these waters only as ru & kp & joint cnkp
it doesnt address cn waters at all
only joint cnkp waters
very important distinction to notice
> If I follow you line of reasoning, this is because
> the entire line between the two markers (No.1 and No.2) is a triline
> shared by all three states
no i dont mean this
i do mean the triline is shared by all 3 states
with cnkp jointly abutting it on one side & ru on the other
& i do believe the triline begins at marker 1
at the left bank
as stated in the text
but i dont believe the triline can extend past midchannel upon the
direct perpendicular line from marker 1 to marker 2
whatever that distance happens to be
whether that specified number of meters or otherwise
the joint cnkp zone itself may extend from bank to bank
or in other words all the way from marker 1 to marker 2
we dont know this tho
nor need to know
but since kpru begins at midchannel
the triline per se must end there
at cnkpkpru
more below
> , but there is a slight problem and
> correct me if I misunderstood something: In art 1. nr.2 is says
> that "... state boundary meeting point of the three countries is
> located on the point where the line delimiting the boundary water
> areas of the three countries intersects the middle line of the main
> channel of the river." To me, this is the actual and factual
> tripoint. At this point, as it says in art.3 nr.1 at the end "...a
> boundary merkar on the state boundary meeting point of the three
> countries, which is located on the water level of the Tumannaja
> river, will not be erected." That's what I meant by getting wet and
> going fishing. The tripoint is on the water level.
yes i see & agree there is a slight problem
as you say
& i believe it is not you who need correcting but the treaty writers
hahahaha
they think they have a triline with a tripoint at only one end
the wet end
cnkpkpru
but they really have a triline with tripoints on both ends
they focus in the text upon the wet unmarked tripoint alone
& yet ironically they can do this only after having first anointed
marker 1 as the dry terminal of the triline aka cncnkpru tripoint
a fact which they then proceed to ignore
i believe this is a defect in the text
a stick must have 2 ends
& the text acknowledges both ends but then spaces one of them out
more below
> However, on the land both on Korean and Russian-chinese river bank,
> there are the tripoint markers and that's something else than the
> actual tripoint. The actual tripoint on the water level is located
> on the line between the two tripoint markers no.1 and no.2. There is
> no mentioning about how far is the actual tripoint from the two
> tripoint markers either.
>
> Another thing, and interesting enough is that the border marker 423
> or the first tripoint marker, is still a border marker between China
> and Russia only. The Korea is not to be mentioned on it. This could
> mean as I suggested last time, that this border marker 423 has been
> chosen for convenience purpose in order to delineate the factual
> tripoint on the water level, but not actually giving a territorial
> claim on the boundary line to the Koreans.
i agree with nearly all the above
but given the text we do have
i imagine there would have had to be some prior cnpk agreement
regarding the exact borders of the joint zone
which specified marker 423 aka 1 as its corner post
That claim is perhaps
> heralded by the erection of tripont marker no.3, where on the one
> side is written Korea.
here is where we begin to differ
i dont attribute any definitive significance to marker number 3 but
imagine it to be just for witness or protocol
the triline is already fully defined by markers 1 & 2
in conjunction with the midchannel point between them
Yet it stands solely on the Russian
> territory. One might guess that the tripoint marker no.3 is placed
> on the line between markers no.1 and no.2 but closer to the river
> bank designating the start of the line dividing the river waters
> between the joint Chinese-korean and Russian. If the tripoint border
> marker no.3 is placed inside Russian territory, then it has to be in
> some angle to the line between the other two tripoint markers.
> Otherwise the tripoint marker no.3 is placed de facto on the Chinese-
> russian border. But again no specification about it in the decree.
i dont see any of these guesses as necessary or very likely
also geometrically
marker 3 cant possibly fall on the direct line between markers 1 & 2
> The art 1 nr.1 says something about the main points deciding the
> direction of the line. It says that, ...a straight line, running
> perpendicular from boundary marker no.423 on the Russian-Chinese
> state boundary to the line in the middle of the main channel of the
> river in between the two river banks." If the tripoint marker no. 3
> is not on this straight line, then it can not run perpendicular to
> the actual tripoint in the river.
i dont see the correctness or even the need for this line of reasoning
> The line can not be considered as the same as the actual tripoint.
i think we must again face the fact with cnkpru that we have already
faced & well digested with both bedelu & defrlu
our tripoint is a triline
& at the ends of the triline are
tripoints
or if you prefer
semi tripoints
but thats the basic topology
a ditripunctitriline
it is geometrically determined
& we cant help it or change it
but i just think the writers of this cnkpru treaty were a little naive
& clumsy about it
& you are rightly picking up on this
> None of the treaty parties mention it like this. Art 3. no.1 says
> that, ...the state boundary meeting point of the three countries
> will be demarcated by three markers...". To me, it does not mean
> that every tripoint marker is the actual tripoint or that the line
> is a point in itself, but that the tripoint markers only demarcate
> the actual tripoint. The demarcation determines the actual tripoint
> on the water level of Tumannja river. Thus, the tripoint markers are
> mathematical, physical and geographical constructs with the sole
> purpose of demarcating the actual tripoint.
i agree with all this
& refer it to the cnkpkpru tripoint
but the text also indicates that marker 1 also marks the conjunction or
tripoint of the cncnkpru water areas
& moreover that the triline extends between these 2 tripoints
otherwise i cant see how to rationalize all this into a single picture
& by way of footnote
a tiny additional detail
there is some reason to believe the cnkp joint area is wet only
& thus it couldnt actually begin at marker 423 on the riverbank
but rather only at the waterline very near this marker
& this may technically reduce the length of the triline slightly
& make its terminal point the bank itself rather than the marker
but this is at most a mere quibble
end of insertions
>
> Petter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "pete2784west" <
> > petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> > > As I understand it: The border marker 423 is originally Russian-
> > > chinese only, but probably for the convenience of setting up a
> > > borderline which ends in the middle of the river Tumen, this
> border
> > > marker is taken as a starting point (cf. art.1). From this point
> the
> > > line is perpendicular to the Chinese-korean borderline formed by
> the
> > > middle of the main channel of the river Tumen. The waters of the
> > > river behind the borderline going from border marker 423 to the
> > > middle of the river are called "joint boundary water area of
> China
> > > and Korea DPR". So the waters are joint, and it makes it easier
> for
> > > the Korean border guards to shoot at people fleeing the country
> as
> > > long as they are in the river, but once they get on the shore
> they
> > > are in China only. The Chinese-korean borderline goes all the
> way
> > > through the middle of the river channel up to the point where
> > > Russia, China and KoreaDPR meet. Further down the stream of
> Tumen
> > > river continues Russian-korean borderline being placed again in
> the
> > > middle of the course of the Tumen river. We are still talking
> about
> > > waters, no land. The tripoints are placed on both sides of the
> > > river,
> >
> > i figure you must mean the tripoint markers here petter
> >
> > not the tripoints themselves
> >
> > but i agree we are really talking about 2 distinct tripoints here
> > cncnkpru & cnkpkpru
> >
> >
> > however
> > these actual tripoints are simply at the 2 end points of the cnkp
> joint
> > or condo zone cnkpru triline
> >
> > think of it as an ordinary tripoint halved or stretched into a
> triline
> > between 2 semitripoints
> >
> > & one of those semitripoints is marked by monument 1
> >
> > & the other is the unmarked point where the sight line between
> monument
> > 1 & monument 2 crosses the midchannel line
> >
> > so as i understand it
> > marker 1 also serves with marker 2 to witness the entire triline
> > including the unmarked end point & cosemitripoint at midchannel
> >
> > we have encountered something very much like this before with the
> delu
> > condo trilines
> >
> > no biggie
> >
> > technically
> > as was observed then
> > all such trilines are dipunctitrilines
> >
> > or more technically still ditripunctitrilines
> > meaning simply trilines with tripoints at each terminal
> >
> >
> > & i also agree it isnt clear whether the joint zone extends all
> the way
> > to the korean bank
> > nor does it apparently matter to the russians
> > who have no such condo with korea
> > nor does it apparently matter for tripointing &or trilining
> purposes
> >
> > more insertions below
> >
> > but they are standing on the sovereign territories, either
> > > Russia, China or Korea. Art. 4 states that every country is
> having
> > > responsibility for one border marker each. The picture of
> > > bordermarker 3 I've seen here, is Russian responsibility.
> >
> > technically 1 marker is on cncnkpru & 1 is in kp & 1 is in ru
> >
> > >
> > > So, reaching a tripoint here means getting wet and go fishing.
> >
> > not really
> > as explained 1 tripoint is marked & the other is wet
> >
> > From
> > > border marker no.1 on a straight line perpendicular to the
> middle of
> > > the stream of the river Tumen, 306,9 m in to the water. Anyone
> > > should feel pretty safe then :-). Then, still following the
> line,
> > > one should get to the shores of the Korea DPR and hit the border
> > > marker no.2. When still in the water and keeping the line aiming
> at
> > > border marker no. 2, to the right you are still in the joint
> Chinese-
> > > korean joint boundary water area. To the left you are still in
> the
> > > water, but whether Russians and Koreans agreed to something
> similiar
> > > as the chines and koreans, I don't know.
> > >
> > > I'm not clear about why the third border marker has been set up
> on
> > > the Russian territory and whether this border marker is placed
> on
> > > the same borderline drawn between border marker no. 1 (on
> Chinese-
> > > russian border) and no. 2 (in Korea).
> >
> > clearly it is not on the line between markers 1 & 2 but downstream
> >
> > more below
> >
> > This is why the final protocol
> > > from 2002 is still needed.
> > >
> > > Petter
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
> > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > Witness marker 1 (aka CN-RU 423): We know this is
> > > > exactly on the CN-RU boundary and is exactly on the
> > > > point where CN-RU hits the CNKP condo (CN-CNKP-RU).
> > > > So why is CNKP-KP-RU the official "state boundary
> > > > meeting point of the three countries" (article 1,
> > > > section 2 of the treaty in message 12459)?
> >
> > this end of the triline is the official meeting point of the 3
> > countries just as much as the other end of the triline is the
> official
> > meeting point
> > & indeed just as much as the entire triline as a whole is the
> official
> > meeting point
> >
> > isnt that lovely
> >
> > a line is a point
> >
> > & a point has become a line between 2 points
>
>
> > Doesn't
> > > > CN-CNKP-RU have just as much the same tripoint status
> > > > since it is one of the 2 terminal points of the
> > > > CNKP-RU triline?
> >
> > yes
> >
> > > > Also - I am unclear on the condo in this regard: Is
> > > > the CNKP condo the entire river (1 in diagram) or just
> > > > half of the river on the Chinese side (2 in diagram).
> > > > I mean we know the triline only goes out to the middle
> > > > of the main channel of the river, but couldn't a
> > > > CNKP-KP line continue after that?
> >
> > we dont know
> >
> > nor does it actually matter for the purposes of our cnkpru chase
> >
> > > > -Mike
> > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:43 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: cnkpru - more
> > > > > pictures
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some more pics (they seem to connect):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p352.jpg
> > > > > > > http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p081.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > this latter pic appears to be by far the best pic we
> > > > > have
> > > > >
> > > > > & if the fence observed by jesper does indeed mark
> > > > > cnru
> > > > > then cnru marker 1 aka 423 should be on the bank at
> > > > > the end of that
> > > > > fence
> > > > > slightly obscured by the foliage
> > > > > unless that dark dot there near the sand flat is the
> > > > > marker
> > > > > yikes
> > > > >
> > > > > but in any case the triline should run from this
> > > > > cncnkpru point 423
> > > > > perpendicular to the bank & halfway across the
> > > > > channel
> > > > > to the unmarked cnkpkpru tripoint at the other end
> > > > > of the triline
> > > > >
> > > > > does everybody see & get that
> > > > > because i do believe we can visualize all this now
> > > > > for the first time
> > > > >
> > > > > bravissimos all
> > > > > in any case
> > > > > > > Peter S.