Subject: Re: Gideon Biger - reply to BW+query!<br/>
Date: Jun 14, 2001 @ 09:31<br/>
Author: Peter Smaardijk (&quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="2842.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2857.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic2816.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="2842.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="2844.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1285178652">Is this a land border? A sea border? Or an air space border? A border <br/>
on a bridge is peculiar...<br/>
<br/>
If it is within the 12 nm zone of both countries, I would say it is <br/>
above territorial waters. So if not a land border, then something <br/>
very similar. But I don&#39;t think this Gideon Biger counts boundaries <br/>
in terr. water as land boundaries. He would count boundaries in <br/>
internal water as such (incl. all sea inside of the baseline). But I <br/>
don&#39;t have his book here, so what do I know...<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Mats Hessman &lt;Mats@l...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; don&#39;t fret about your country only having one border. After <br/>
&gt; &gt; all, Australia <br/>
&gt; &gt; is no-Biger than yours!<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt;  <br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt;Well, Brendan, I guess you&#39;re right, DK most<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt;certainly deserves no more than one copy...<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt;having only one boundary line...<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; I must protest! From June 2000 Denmark is entitled<br/>
&gt; to another copy of Biger.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Take a look at the non-wet boundary marker on<br/>
&gt; Peter&#39;s own site (!) at <br/>
&gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.geocities.com/mafiapetedk/bordersweden2.html.">http://www.geocities.com/mafiapetedk/bordersweden2.html.</a><br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Mats </span></blockquote></div>