Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] nsw sa vic & almstn
Date: Apr 18, 2001 @ 23:54
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Michael, For an interesting sidenote to your discussion on almstn,
>go southeast, upriver, from the tripoint. Note the map labelling error
>where Tishamingo County, MS meets Colbert County, AL. There is a
>section of the 1:100000 map where both Tishamingo and Colbert are applied
>to the same area. The 1:25000 map does not have this error. Jack
> -----Original Message-----From: michael donner (by way of jane
>capellaro <j@...>) [mailto:m@...]Sent: Tuesday,
>April 17, 2001 2:36 PMTo: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.comSubject:
>[BoundaryPoint] nsw sa vic & almstngood of you to
> dish these data & map brendanthey really are worth
> savoringthis is pickwick tva dam lake 1937it looks like the
> usgs rightly feels responsible for preserving the memoryof these boundary
> making river banksbut couldnt quite finish the job at the mouth of yellow
> creekwhere we are left to deduce how your six 4pole chains aka 396 feet
> fit inupriver of the invisible creek confluence & visible mstn
> linebut i have checked it out & you are rightalso my own
> further digging has just revealed a very simple & very dumbsolution to
> the whole problembus&ss says the code of alabama saysaltn runs
> westward along the southern boundary of tncrossing the tennessee
> river & then peculiarly but
> verbatim& on to second intersection
> of said river by said linethe original
> intention of & reason for this reference to the secondintersection was
> obviously owing to the fact that the tennessee rivercrosses the 35th
> parallel twice first near algatn & again at almstnbut
> the wording can also be perversely read in this case to refer only tothe
> second or lower of these two crossingswhere the second intersection of the
> river by the line could then only meanthe left or western banksince
> the first intersection of the river by the line there could only
> haveoccurred at its right or eastern bankof course i
> know every place a shape is intersected by a line there
> arereally two line intersections both occurring along the outline of
> the shapebut i doubt this geometric construction was ever intended by
> anyone& so i would guess that it was only the happenchance of such
> a perversereading that has more than anything else encouraged the altn
> boundary tocontinue westward across the river & then for lack of
> any better clue toscamper up the left bank to almstn without
> disturbance or serious objectionfrom anyone but mein any
> caseattached below is a pic of our trusty local informant & pilot
> horace yearberturning about on the tristate pointwith the camera
> pointing northwest to the rather impressive lake house ofloretta
> lynn closest resident to almstnwhich stands very near the
> first yellow creek left bank benchmark on the topobut for my
> moneyalmstn is not so much a point as a gap or hole in
> realitymps to davidbear creek & the fragment are
> farther up the tennessee riverjust 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&n=3870203&e=389129&size=l&symshow=n>
>>BW>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=52288.1335191.2924466.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=592
>076/*http://www.ashford.com/doorway.asp?urlid=5424 target="_top"> Your
>use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>Yahoo! Terms of Service.