On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Brendan Whyte wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, but I cannot find the fragment that you are refering to on these
maps. I also cannot find "Bear Creek"
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>