I think it's _you_ who's straightening _me_ out now, Michael. I was looking at the Descheemaeker map
in my msg. 1481, but according to all the written stuff I have read about it, it might be the way
you describe it.
But reading the Bayonne treaty again, I come to a different conclusion still, which could mean there
are no tripoints, but an enclaved condominium!
"Art.9
From Chapitelacoarria to the mouth of the Bidasoa, at the Rade du Figuier, the middle of the main
stream of the waters of this river, at low tide, will form the line of separation of the two
Sovereignties, without changing anything about the actual nationality of the islands, the Ile des
Faisans continuing to belong to two Nations".
So there is talk of the main stream. Nowadays, this is the branch on the French side. But this
hasn't always been the case. At one time, Descheemaeker writes, the French branch almost
disappeared, and some work had to be done in order for the island to remain an island. But since
then all sorts of land reclaiming works along the river have taken place, and given the fact that
there are a number of islands in the river, the main stream probably changed over the years. I think
(but this isn't based on anything I have read) that the main stream at the time of the signing in
1856 is the important one here, and that the border hasn't changed since (in that respect. What I
mean is: not changed except when explicitely done in other treaties or similar documents).
So let's assume that the French branch was the main one in 1856. Then the condominium is entirely
surrounded by Spanish internal waters.
Sorry for killing off the tripoints. But a centre line in any river branch just doesn't touch any
island's shoreline!
Now for the Txingudi bay (the part between the main railway bridge and the pierheads: Maybe it was
at one stage included in the Figuier condominium, but according to the topo map (IGN 1:25k) not
anymore. A clear boundary line has been drawn all the way to the pierheads, and even a little beyond
that, but that last part doesn't count I would think. The boundary seems to follow the centre of the
stream at low tide, but generally passes very close to the spanish shore. This seems to be partly
because the Spanish have done a lot of land reclaiming here, building the runway for the
Donostia/San Sebastián airport at Hondarribia there (very Hongkong-style). If an aircraft overshoots
the runway and ends up a couple of meters further in the water, it definitely has crossed the
border! By the way, there is an international agreement between France and Spain on the crossing of
French airspace for aircraft in and out of Donostia airport. The only approach is from sea, flying
over Hendaye Plage, and then over Txingudi bay. It is a tiny airport, but can take (and takes! I've
seen it) aircraft up to DC 9's.
Peter S.
michael donner wrote:
> first thanx for the tactful hint peter
> as all these franco spanish condo tripoints could be called frfrspsp only
> in my fractured isofips
> a coinage as adulterated as punctology itself
> & of course they should all be changed to esesfrfr in the kings iso
> tho the suffixes 1 2 3 & 4 can still probably continue to serve pro tem
> to indicate the generally ascending &or eastward progression of the 4 such
> points you have turned up so far
> of which i take it we were talking here about number 3 in the line
>
> your observations themselves are a little puzzling to me tho because i
> thought you had indicated earlier that the all dry or upper condo is the
> island itself
> or is coterminous with the island
> & also that the international boundary is defined in such a way as to meet
> this condo boundary precisely at the upstream & downstream extremities of
> the island
> or at least to make a sort of wedge out of it i think you said
>
> your map in http://www.egroups.com/message/boundarypoint/1481 makes this
> pretty clear too
> if it can be believed
>
> perhaps i have only imagined some of these details
> but all together they are what led me to predict that the 2 ile de la
> conference tripoints at least would be easy to put a finger on
>
> & your pic in message 1703
> http://www.originepyrenees.com/images_mag/ile.jpg
> now that i compare it to the map
> appears to give a very good view indeed of tripoint esesfrfr3 at left
> as well as a pretty fair view of tripoint esesfrfr4 at right
>
> however if the international boundary does cleave invariably to a thalweg
> or thalwegs
> as you now seem to be indicating
> then it couldnt & wouldnt even touch the island
> & if it does describe the center line of the river invariably
> as you may also mean
> then it could only strike the island by chance if indeed it did so at all
> & would thus in just about every possible case not produce the neat results
> i had envisioned
> & on which i based the guesses made both above & below
>
> your guess that it might be off frame at left would place it within the river
> where i was least expecting it based on the above info
> & moreover you seem to be talking about 3 thalwegs here in all
> as if to indicate this is a river confluence rather than an ordinary island
> & i know there was some reference made to changes in the river but
> but perhaps you can straighten me out here again too
>
> m
>
> >
> >Ile de la Conference: you're looking eastwards. So the point towards
> >you is the westernmost point (frfreses[number]). Still, it being at
> >the meeting point of the center lines (or thalwegs) of the two
> >branches of the Bidasoa and the center line/thalweg of the
> >continuation of that river, it might be that it is just beyond this
> >picture at your left.
> >
> >Peter S.
> >
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
> >
> > evidently our first close look here at either frfrspsp3 or
> >frfrspsp4
> >> as i cant tell which end of the ile de conference this is
> >>
> >> m
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/