couldnt follow the dutch so well
but it strikes me as very curious that areas subject to the accumulation of
sand dunes would be specially marked by such low stones
while all the regular monuments on this line are so outstandingly tall
m
>
>I suspect that in a lot of cases, the principle of the boundary lay-
>out is specified in a treaty (like "the 49 deg. line"), but the
>actual demarcation is left for after the conclusion of the treaty.
>Then the field work starts, and errors inevitably creep in. The
>border markers are put on their spots, and from that time they are
>considered to be standing right on the border. So I think Brendans
>guess that the lines between bdy. markers are great circles is
>basically correct. That is, of course, if the boundary treaty speakes
>of a line like a parallel or some other line normally perceived
>as "straight". Sometimes, a boundary between two markers is defined
>in a treaty as "following a river" or some other feature in the
>field. In that case, other rules apply, of course.
>
>In this respect, it is interesting to know that along the benl
>border, very well marked by those nice and tall border monuments,
>this also occurs. On some stretches, auxiliary border markers are
>used. Eef Berns has a nice photo report of one of these stretches
>(where a lot of moving sand dunes constantly made the border a lot
>less visible) at <http://home.wanadoo.nl/~eefberns/tussenpaaltjes%>
>http://home.wanadoo.nl/~eefberns/tussenpaaltjes%
>20bij%20putte.html .
>
>Peter S.
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@h...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >From: "Jesper & Nicolette Nielsen" <jesniel@i...>
>> >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
>> >To: <BoundaryPoint@y...>
>> >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Fiat boundaries
>> >Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 07:45:41 +0200
>> >
>> >Which international boundaries are 100% fiat, meaning 100%
>straight?
>> >
>> >On the map I see:
>> >
>> >Morocco-Western Sahara
>> >Algeria-Mauretania
>> >Western Sahara-Algeria
>> >Nigeria-Chad
>> >
>> >But perhaps there are minor irregularities I cannot see on my map,
>so who
>> >can confirm this?
>> >
>>
>> Define 'straight'. Especially on a sphere. The only stright line on
>a sphere
>> occurs on a great circle. A line following any parallel apart fomr
>the
>> equator (the only great circle of latitude) is not straight, it
>bends left
>> or right. Therefore the US Canada boundary along the 49th is NOT a
>straight
>> line.
>> therefore the N-S segments of Mor-West sahara, the small WS-Alg and
>parts of
>> Niger-Chad probably are.
>> Second, although defined in treaties as following given parallels
>or
>> latitudes, or 'stright lines' joining certian points on diagonals
>(eg
>> Algeria's boundaries... are they great circles, or not?), most
>boundaries on
>> the ground are straight lines joining pillars erected where the
>paralleles
>> etc are thought at the time to be.
>> The US-Canada boundary was so defined, a series of line segments
>joining
>> pillars. Even if the pillars ARE on the 49th, the 'stright lines'
>joining
>> them will not be except at those pillars. So at leats once,
>intermediate
>> pillars were erected to make shorter line segments, and keep the
>boundary as
>> close as practical to the pilars.
>>
>> I am guessing that a straight line of sight fomr a pillar to
>another IS a
>> great circle segment.
>>
>> BW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Jesper
>> >
>>
>>
>______________________________________________________________________
>___
>> 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
>3934/?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.