--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Brendan Whyte" <brwhyte@h...> wrote:
> >But the Dutch map is much more recent than the Belgian one, and it
> >does show the Withagen enclave, the most recent one. This one the
> >Belgian map doesn't show.
>
> But in the wrong place, and 4x too large!
> It is not the square of forest it is marked on.
> On the NE side of what is shown as Withhagen are two rectangular
fields, one
> with a small bridge over the drain that lines their NE side.
> The easternmost of these two fields is the true location of
withagen, which
> occupies the northern third of this easternmost field, in other
words the
> portion of the field between the 'a' and 'g' in the word Withagen
on the map
> 50B Breda.
Thank you for that information. The Topografische Dienst should be
very ashamed of itself. I will keep an eye open for the new edition.
>
> I have written to TDN about this, and they said they would check to
see if I
> was correct! I got the information fomr the cadastral authorities
in Breda
> who have the original maps of the enclaves, and who should know. So
we will
> see if it is changed in the next edition. Dutch mpping has a 2 year
revision
> programme currently.
>
> Also,besides H7 De Louveren (H7), H18 AND H12 are missing fomr
Dutch sheet
> 50G Baarle-Nassau!!! And an inadvertent piece of boundary is shown
at 1215E,
> 3803N.
That piece of boundary I already spotted myself. It is clear that
this is a mistake, of course, but as you say:
> Sloppy.
Exactly.
Could you lead me to the missing H12 and H18?
What I do see is the long narrow piece of Belgium running almost N-S
across the Baarle-Nassau industrial estate. This is also forgotten on
the Dutch map.
Peter S.
>
> BW