good of you to dish these data & map brendan
they really are worth savoring
this is pickwick tva dam lake 1937
it looks like the usgs rightly feels responsible for preserving the memory
of these boundary making river banks
but couldnt quite finish the job at the mouth of yellow creek
where we are left to deduce how your six 4pole chains aka 396 feet fit in
upriver of the invisible creek confluence & visible mstn line
but i have checked it out & you are right
also my own further digging has just revealed a very simple & very dumb
solution to the whole problem
bus&ss says the code of alabama says
altn runs westward along the southern boundary of tn
crossing the tennessee river
& then peculiarly but verbatim
& on to second intersection of said river by said line
the original intention of & reason for this reference to the second
intersection was obviously owing to the fact that the tennessee river
crosses the 35th parallel twice
first near algatn & again at almstn
but the wording can also be perversely read in this case to refer only to
the second or lower of these two crossings
where the second intersection of the river by the line could then only mean
the left or western bank
since the first intersection of the river by the line there could only have
occurred at its right or eastern bank
of course i know every place a shape is intersected by a line there are
really two line intersections both occurring along the outline of the shape
but i doubt this geometric construction was ever intended by anyone
& so i would guess that it was only the happenchance of such a perverse
reading that has more than anything else encouraged the altn boundary to
continue westward across the river & then for lack of any better clue to
scamper up the left bank to almstn without disturbance or serious objection
from anyone but me
in any case
attached below is a pic of our trusty local informant & pilot horace yearber
turning about on the tristate point
with the camera pointing northwest to the rather impressive lake house of
loretta lynn
closest resident to almstn
which stands very near the first yellow creek left bank benchmark on the topo
but for my money
almstn is not so much a point as a gap or hole in reality
m
ps to david
bear creek & the fragment are farther up the tennessee river
just where the alms survey line comes up from the south
>
>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=3870203=389129=l=n>
>http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=16&n=3870203&e=389129&size=l&symshow=n
>
>BW
>
>
>>From: michael donner <m@discovernet.net>
>>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@yahoo.com>
>> >>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/>
>><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>
>><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>
>>http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=55
>>>> >1015/?<http://www.debticated.com> http://www.debticated.com
>>target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>> >Groups is subject to the <<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>> >of Service.
>>
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>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=190481.1393724.2979175.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=61>3957/?http://www.newaydirect.com
target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>of Service.