good brendan
i didnt mean to provoke all that reassembly
but it was quite valuable
my only lingering question really was whether any former boundary crosses
might have bit the dust as a result of this latest accord
& i wouldnt even be curious about that
had i not been haunted by the ghost of that cobblestone cross
for i really do stand in awe of & fully trust your analysis
m
>
>As stated previously, there is only ONE quadripoint in Baarle, as evidenced
>by the Treaty of 1995 which finally determined the boundaries of the
>enclaves, and the associated cadastral maps of both countries.
>There are 959 separate turning points listed for the enclaves in the
>numerical listing of these TPs together with their coordinates in each
>country's national grid. Yet counting up the turning points enclave by
>enclave in the enclave-wise listing, there are 960. Why? Because one point
>is used twice, as a turning point for each enclave, and is thus the ONLY
>point common to 2 enclaves.
>The Plattegrund map, of which i also have a copy is a tourist map. It
>suffers from being designed as such.
>The roads USED to be considered Dutch (and the belgians had free use of them
>as per 1843 treaty and ancient privilege). The Ferraris map of the late
>1700s makes this clear. This is available fomr the Belgian survey dept, the
>IGN in Brussels. Their web site is www.ign.be
>
>For much of this century, if the two nations stood opposite each other
>across a road, the dividingl ine was considered the middle of theroad for
>the extent of the opposition. since 1995, the roads only form the boundary
>if the turning points in the treaty fall down the middle of the road, though
>for practical purposes like street lighting and road maintence costs, the
>middle of the road is still used to aportion costs based on pro rata areas.
>But legally, the boundary is a series of straight lines joining up the
>various turning points, and so cuts across many roads, makeing sharp and
>obtuse angles in the roads, not necessarily in the middle.
>There is no questiuon of any other multipoints apart from the one that
>exists between enclaves H1 and H2. there are no multipoints along the main
>boundary between pillars 214 and 215 either.
>De Blokken in the south of Baarle Nassau commune is connected to the main
>commune by a 20m wide strip along which runs a farm lane.
>The Castelre salient in the SW of Baarle Nassau commune is connected by a
>300m wide neck, and the fragment of baarle Hertog at the north side of this
>neck is itself connected to the rest of Belgium by a neck only 50m wide.
>Some of the enclaves in the village are only 10m apart. Some enclaves
>themselves have narrow necks down to 2.9m wide (eg H16).
>These can appear on the topographic maps of botrh countries at 1:10k and
>1:25k, and even on the larger scale tourist maps as joined or multipointed
>or separate, due to the problems of mapping such small distances at even
>such a large scale s 1:8000.
>That is why the cadastral maps showing the boundary were compiled at 1:2500
>for the rural communal areas, and 1:1000 by Baarle-Nassau and 1:500 by
>Baarle Hertog.
>Only on these, with the points numbered and distances labelled, can one
>determine the exact geometries.
>Tourist maps are indicative only. Plattegrund is one of these, as are the
>maps appearing in the Gemeentegids, or Communal guide the 2 municipalities
>jointly issue.
>Plattegrund is a streetmap and designed to show streets and buildings. The
>enclave information is secondary, and slightly inaccurate.
>
>Brendan
>
>
>>wowwoooo
>>i would like more light in this area too
>>especially the quadripointing implications
>>because i believe i recall brendan mentioning a rather recent new accord &
>>map
>>possibly affecting at least one such point
>>
>>m
>> >
>> >I bet that no international boundaries in an around the Baarles have
>> >changed in the last few hundred years. Differences between maps will be
>> >due to error in one or both.
>> >
>> >David
>> >> Mats,
>> >>
>> >> I agree your map looks good, mine has the road belonging to BE.
>> >>
>> >> I don't if they are just unaccurate or things have changed.
>> >>
>
>> >> > Jesper,
>> >> >
>> >> > The print date of my map is 1995. Since your map is newer,
>> >> > I suppose it should contain the best information. Too bad...
>> >> >
>> >> > Here is a (bad-quality hand-scanned) image:
>> >> > <<http://www.geocities.com/exclaves/BiQuad_Candidate.gif>
>>http://www.geocities.com/exclaves/BiQuad_Candidate.gif>
>> >><http://www.geocities.com/exclaves/BiQuad_Candidate.gif>
>>http://www.geocities.com/exclaves/BiQuad_Candidate.gif
>> >> >
>> >> > By the way, did y'all see:
>> >> >
>>
>>>><<http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/ibnlsummary590620.htm> h
>>ttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/ibnlsummary590620.htm>
>>http
>> >>://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/ibnlsummary590620.htm
>> >> > (Perhaps it's old news to most of you...)
>> >> >
>> >> > Mats
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Mats
>> >> > >
>> >> > > according to my (Peters) 1:8300 Baarle map all of the pink
>> >> > > main road is hatched. Donkerstraat looks also to be all
>> >> > > Belgium apart from a tiny part of the last road connection to
>> >> > > Molenstraat.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If we have the same map - notice that the red (hatch) line
>> >> > > that goes through the world Donkerstraat continues through
>> >> > > all the way through. I also see two red (hatch) lines in
>> >> > > between the enclaves.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > However I don't trust the tourist map's 100% accuracy.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Checking a third Baarle map 1:25000 don't answer the
>> >> > > question. This one do show the triangle as Dutch, but the
>> >> > > road is not marked to any country.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Jesper
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > I have a tourist Baarle Map 1:8300. It's named "plattegrond"
>> >> > > > > from 1999. The Belgium part is hatched. I see the triangle
>> >> > > > > and inverted U-shape. As I see the map the road
>> >> > > > > Molenstraat/Turnhoutsweg is all Belgium and therefore not a
>> >> > > > > bi-quadro.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Are you quite sure? I think I am looking at the same map.
>> >> > > > Mine is 1:8300 and the Belgian fragments are hatched in a
>> >> > > > red (hard-to-read) color.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On my map the Molenstraat seems to be part of the triangular
>> >> > > > Dutch shape, i. e. the part of Molenstraat that runs through the
>> >> > > > triangle is not hatched, thus Dutch, on my map.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > My triangle is actually a polygon with four corners, looking
>> >> > > > a lot but not quite, like a triangle, the fourth corner
>> >> > > > apparently connecting to the inverted U-shape.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I'd say there is definately a bi-quadro candidate to be
>> >> > > > investigated in situ, if anyone should happen to pass by.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Let's hear what our new brother Wolfgang has to say about it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thank you for the description of your other candidates!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Mats
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
><http://www.hotmail.com> http://www.hotmail.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Register Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
>subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.