Interesting. Both the TnMs and TnAl lines were menat to be at the 35th
parallel. But the Ms leg was defined "from a point on the west bank of the
Tennessee River four six-pole chains south, or above Yellow Creek... and
then ran west. This line was slightly south of the 35th. IN Al, the estimate
of where the 35th was was made near Elk River, in the middle of the AlTn
line. It was then run east and west of thatp oint, but has a slight angling
to the NW and SE, such that it is south of the 35th at the Ga border, and
north of the 35th at the Ms border.
So instead of the two lines of southern Tn meeting at the 35th, the Ms part
is a little south and the Al part al ittle norht, fo a total error of about
a mil,e north south. Given that the west bank of the Tn form the AlMs line
to the south, continuing the line along the bank north seems reasonable,
rather than drawing a straight line. A line diagonally across the river fomr
one bank to the other would also seem logical, if out of keeping with NS and
EW american lines, though looking again at themap, it would have been more
NS than the current line following the river slightly W of N.

So who defined this 1 mile extra leg, and when? Is it statuted?

That theriver here has been dammed (when?) means the line is no longer on a
bank, and created a little fragment of Al on the Ms side of the line south
from Bear Ck, which was once no doubt all land, and not lake.

Interesitng that the USGS maps show the original river banks down the
middleof the lake.

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=16&n=3870203&e=389129&size=l&symshow=n

BW

>From: michael donner <m@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first try at a complete punctoscopy of canada
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:47:39 -0400
>
>good luck
>
>we have a practically identical situation at almstn
>except it seems to have been answered by fiat here
>
>a left bank alms line has simply been extended by the mapmakers down the
>left bank past the almstn tristate point to produce a short extralegal
>northsouth segment of the altn line
>which is however by statute an entirely eastwest line
>
>the similarly small legal gap occurring there might have been closed in a
>variety of ways
>but it seems as tho the flow of the river alone is what suggested the
>resolution & somehow carried the line in peoples minds where it had to go
>
>the usgs will not even take my questions about it seriously
>
>m
>
>
> >
> >Unwieldy was precisely the argument the Victorian high court judge used
> >against the idea that the top of the left bank of the murray is the
> >NSW/Victorian border. Which means a wharf starts in Victoria and extends
> >into NSW. But it turns out to be correct.
> >Austrlaia also has an undecided water body: the lenfgth of the Murray
>from
> >the NSW/SA boundary at 141deg east to the Vic/SA boundary which was meant
>to
> >be 141deg east, but ended up 2 miles too far west. Now as the NSW/Vic
> >boundary is the south bank of the Murray, where is the Vic/SA boundary
>for
> >the length of the Murray until it meets the main N-S part of the Vic-SA
> >border? No one knows. Topo maps state it is undefined.
> >The land north of that part of the urray is undoubtedly SA. The landd
>south
> >Vic. But what about the river? Does NSW continue dpown the river, between
> >top of the left and right banks? Does SA include the river? To the top of
> >the left bank, or only to the median lin,e or thalweg? Or does Vic own
>the
> >river?
> >
> >More next week.
> >
> >BW
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Arif Samad <fHoiberg@...>
> >>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> >>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> >>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first try at a complete punctoscopy of
>canada
> >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
> >>
> >>Because it was tax season here, the computer was
> >>needed for tax preparation and I was thus lax at
> >>e-mailing or updating my page for the last month. It
> >>should most likely change.
> >>I want to put my two cents on the subject of Nunavut
> >>owning all of Hudson bay. Whatever the situation is,
> >>it is one of two improbable situations. So take a
> >>side on what you like. What we know is that all
> >>islands in Hudson, James and Ungava Bay belongs to
> >>Nunavut. Now if Michael is right, then all the island
> >>are enclaved in Canadian waters. Now that maybe
> >>technically correct, but have we thought of the
> >>consequences? Water level or silt buildup changes.
> >>What happens when a new island forms or an old island
> >>disappears. Does the enclave disappear only to maybe
> >>mystically reappear a few years later when water level
> >>changes again. Again that maybe technically correct,
> >>but I find that a little unwieldy. The other choice
> >>would be considering all water after the low tide
> >>level to be Nunavut. The problem there is that you
> >>could then technically dive from Ontario or Quebec
> >>land and land in Nunavut waters. Even weirder is the
> >>idea of a wet-dry tripoint existing near Killineq
> >>island. I know it is probably technically wrong, but
> >>I like the idea of picturing the whole area being
> >>Nunavut water. It is just so much easier to picture.
> >>Let the arguments begin.
> >> Arif
> >>
> >>__________________________________________________
> >>Do You Yahoo!?
> >>Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> >><http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> ><http://www.hotmail.com> http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=55
> >1015/?http://www.debticated.com target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
> >Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
> >of Service.
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com