Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: search for germany benelux river condos advances
Date: Apr 20, 2001 @ 16:10
Author: michael donner (michael donner <m@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


peter & al

heading out to play
but just want to say
yess
i was hoping for a castle

& even saw a possible beauty of one around vianden on line
but couldnt pin it on these heights

so now you have helped this toward the best possible outcome

a pivotal if not causal area spanning the 2 vianden condo tripoints

with a fairly monumental unique bicondominial seigneurie
for a cherry on the top

m


>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
>> great
>> this is hot
>> & it sure looks like you have caught the territorial changes in mid
>air
>>
>> for whatever grundstuecken may actually mean
>> it could well have been referring here to the historically dry land
>parcels
>> that became submerged by the dam
>> & thus already practically transferred by nature to the condo area
>> while the new treaty & laws might have merely been confirming this
>new reality
>> since it would have been much harder if not impossible to deny &
>resist it
>> anyway
>>
>I didn't think of this possibility yet, but it sounds very reasonable.
>But the Grundstuecken may well be those pieces of land that were
>submerged following the building of the dam. They should be taken out
>of the land register, acc. to this law. But that could well mean they
>cease to exist altogether as dry land, and the wet territory replacing
>it is now part of the condo.
>
>The 'old' islands in the rivers were probably already been taken care
>of in the 1816 treaty anyway, and to my knowledge no new islands were
>added, at least not following the building of the dam.
>
>> imagine the alternative
>> a navigable waterway made condo for convenience in the first place
>> now comprising 3 stripes of water with 3 different statuses of
>nationality
>>
>> a likely reason too for the difference between this bassin &
>pickwick
>>
>>
>> as for the islands
>> the befrlu aerial photo from jesper in message 1235 is likely
>typical of
>> islands within the condo
>> so i would like to just count them all in at least provisionally
>>
>>
>> alternatively or additionally
>> this leaves that peculiar left bank territory of luxembourg around
>vianden
>> to also marvel at
>> the unique exception to & break in the delu condo
>>
>> not knowing its history
>> i can only wonder if it was a result of the dam
>> say
>> a necessary expedient for bypassing the dam & leaving it entirely in
>> luxembourg for some reason i cant say
>>
>> but its high ground also suggests it might hold a castle that
>historically
>> belonged to or dominated vianden
>> so this strange exception could just as easily have long predated
>the dam
>>
>> thus all the more reason the data you are seeking here will be
>interesting
>>
>> for unless we find an old map that could also settle this question
>> there is a possibility that the grundstuecken referred to are the
>parcels
>> of this left bank territory
>>
>> m
>
>I'm absolutely positive the Vianden boundary detour precedes the
>building of the dam and has nothing to do with it. Rather, the
>building of the dam was facilitated by the fact that at that spot both
>river banks belong to Luxembourg. Anyway, the border is meandering
>considerably here (why else need 27 intermediate boundary markers?). I
>suspect it has something to do with the position of Vianden castle and
>its military importance in times long gone.
>
>Peter S.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >In
>>
>><<http://www.salomonia.com/Bundesrecht/verlauf_gemeinsame_staatsgrenzeG/verlau
>>f_>
>>http://www.salomonia.com/Bundesrecht/verlauf_gemeinsame_staatsgrenzeG/verlauf_ >
>>> >gemeinsame_staatsgrenze-text.htm>
>>
>><http://www.salomonia.com/Bundesrecht/verlauf_gemeinsame_staatsgrenzeG/verlauf
>>_ge>
>>http://www.salomonia.com/Bundesrecht/verlauf_gemeinsame_staatsgrenzeG/verlauf_ge
>> >meinsame_staatsgrenze-text.htm
>> >(the law that puts the 1984 treaty into force), there is talk of
>> >Grundstuecken (parcels of land), that have to be taken out of the
>> >German land register, because they are situated within the
>territory
>> >of joint sovereignty as defined in the treaty (art. 3 (1) 2 and 3
>(1)
>> >3). This is the first time I see some proof of dry pieces of this
>> >condominium in print (although I think I can see some tiny islands
>on
>> >the 1:20k map of Vianden and surroundings that fall in between the
>> >boundaries along the river banks as well). Unless "Grundstuecken"
>is
>> >German legalese for parcels of anything, including water. Can
>somebody
>> >enlighten me on that? And can someone come up with the text of this
>> >treaty? So far, I've been unable to find it.
>> >
>> >Peter S.
>> >
>> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
>> >> profuse thanxxx peter
>> >>
>> >> this all feels great
>> >>
>> >> & i agree about monuments 19 & 47
>> >> for now i can envision them marking dedelulu condo tripoints on
>the
>> >left
>> >> bank of the river & dam lake respectively
>> >> if i understand you correctly
>> >> & thus i would also expect them to have condo terminus mates on
>the
>> >> respective right banks more or less directly opposite
>> >> but the mates will in that case just be marking points on the
>delulu
>> >line
>> >> rather than tripoints
>> >>
>> >> in other words no trilines around vianden as at befrlu & bedelu
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> also
>> >> while looking forward to your further comments on bedelu
>> >>
>> >> considering the narrowness of the river condo there
>> >> & assuming it even persists that far upriver
>> >> which i do assume now based on your new info
>> >> & pending any more details
>> >> & considering also the shortness & interruptedness of the
>riverine
>> >sectors
>> >> of the bede boundary continuing up the ours from bedelu
>> >> i would venture to guess we will not find any bede river condos
>> >anywhere
>> >> but only a single linear bede boundary from bedelu to bedenl
>> >> & would douse the hope i once had of a bicondo quadripoint at
>> >bedelu
>> >>
>> >> also
>> >> just to fully embrace the benelux try again
>> >> considering the shortness & interruptedness of the riverine
>sectors
>> >of the
>> >> denl boundary
>> >> i would also venture to guess a single linear boundary again in
>that
>> >case
>> >> except just possibly for a condo on the rhine sector
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> but beyond that
>> >> since you bring word now of a more pervasive river condo culture
>> >than might
>> >> be indicated by just the 2 or 4 positive finds you have made
>along
>> >the esfr
>> >> & delu frontiers
>> >> especially with the account of that wonderful sanctuary ferry
>> >custom
>> >> it seems worth staying alert now to the possibility of finding
>other
>> >> surviving river condos on other european boundaries than just
>these
>> >>
>> >> m
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ps
>> >> it seems almost a necessity that river condos keep moving with a
>> >changing
>> >> river
>> >> but a luxury & a rarity when simple riverine boundary lines do
>> >>
>> >> i think vianden is odder for the boundary detour than the condo
>> >expansion
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> also
>> >> the 1263 breakthru by peter you mentioned was building since
>message
>> >293
>> >> tho the companion suggestion in that message re atchde has
>> >probably been
>> >> busted by gideon
>> >> so this particular search you have so beautifully advanced again
>now
>> >is a
>> >> terrific survivor
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
>> >> >> still working in the dark for lack of an 1815 treaty of vienna
>> >text
>> >> >> & still clueless also about any later international agreements
>> >that
>> >> >could
>> >> >> have affected the river condo or condos originally created
>then
>> >> >>
>> >> >> but a lucky catch at
>> >> >> <<<http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html>
>>http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html>
>> >><http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html>
>>http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html>
>> >> >><<http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html>
>>http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html>
>> >><http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html>
>>http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/fish_border.html
>> >> >> makes the delu river condo on the moselle at schengen aka
>defrlu
>> >> >> which several members have already pointed out with pix &
>maps
>> >> >> seem likely to continue northward
>> >> >> first all the way down the moselle to wasserbillig
>> >> >> & from there all the way up the tributary river sauer to
>> >wallendorf
>> >> >> & finally all the way up its tributary river the our to
>bedelu
>> >> >> except in this last case for a very short stretch around
>vianden
>> >> >where the
>> >> >> delu boundary leaves the river our
>> >> >>
>> >> >> this single detour breaks the possible river condo territory
>into
>> >> >two
>> >> >> separate pieces
>> >> >> & may produce a pair of riparian condo tripoints in the
>process
>> >> >> one just southeast & the other just north of vianden
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It looks like you're right. I have a 1:20k map here of the
>Vianden
>> >> >area, and the points where the border leaves the river Our are
>at
>> >> >boundary marker 47 (north of Vianden) and boundary marker 19
>(south
>> >of
>> >> >Vianden). These boundary markers are likely to be pairs, one on
>> >each
>> >> >bank. Moreover, because of the large width of the river north of
>> >> >Vianden (it is the Bassin Inferieur lake formed by the river dam
>at
>> >> >Vianden), the boundaries are clearly depicted as following both
>> >banks,
>> >> >thus leaving the condominium in the middle. I find it strange
>> >> >(although understandable) that the border obviously changed,
>> >because
>> >> >the lake certainly wasn't there in 1815, and the borders are
>> >following
>> >> >the lake shore lines. This is unlike the US example (I believe
>it
>> >was
>> >> >in Tennessee) mentioned in this group a couple of days ago.
>> >Normally,
>> >> >a boundary stays the same, even if a river changes its course,
>> >unless
>> >> >a new boundary is negotiated. Perhaps that's what has been
>> >happening
>> >> >in Vianden.
>> >> >
>> >> >The border situation is all the more obvious, since south of bdy
>> >> >marker 47 a municipal sectional border continues southwards
>through
>> >> >the middle of the lake, and across the dam.
>> >> >
>> >> >I found another nice piece of evidence of the special status of
>the
>> >> >delu boundary rivers. According to
>> >> ><<<http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html>
>>http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html>
>> >><http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html>
>>http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html>
>> >> ><<http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html>
>>http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html>
>> >><http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html>
>>http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rleick/BrueckeSchengen.html , on the
>> >> >river ferries a right of asylum once existed. When someone that
>was
>> >> >persecuted could reach a ferryboat, he could stay there for six
>> >weeks
>> >> >and three days, without fear of being arrested. If he succeeded,
>> >after
>> >> >this time, to make three steps on dry ground, the asylum was
>> >renewed
>> >> >for six weeks.
>> >> >When a persecuted person wanted to go to the other side, the
>> >ferryman
>> >> >would bring him over, return, and only then take the persecutors
>on
>> >> >board!
>> >> >It looks like this is some old law, preceding the condominium of
>> >1815.
>> >> >Possibly the condominium solution even so much as succeded the
>old,
>> >> >already existing legal practises at the border rivers.
>> >> >
>> >> >Peter S.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> >>
>>
>>><"<<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=177880.1317466.2915209.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:
>>>N/>
>>>http://rd.yahoo.com/M=177880.1317466.2915209.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/ >> >
>>>>A=6>
>>
>>><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=177880.1317466.2915209.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A
>>>=6>
>>>http://rd.yahoo.com/M=177880.1317466.2915209.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=6>
>>>>> >>>
>>
>>>36748/*<<http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;2720899;5684702;u?http://www.business.
>>>co>
>>>http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;2720899;5684702;u?http://www.business.co
>> >>m/>
>>
>>><http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;2720899;5684702;u?http://www.business.com/> ht
>>>tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;2720899;5684702;u?http://www.business.com/"
>> >> >target="_top">Fnd Business Information Your use of Yahoo!
>Groups
>> >is
>> >> >subject to the <<<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>> >><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>Yahoo! Terms of
>> >> >Service.
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>
>><<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1393724.2979175.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A
>>=61>
>>http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1393724.2979175.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=61
>>>> >3960/?<http://www.newaydirect.com> http://www.newaydirect.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.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190481.1393724.2979175.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=61
>3928/?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.