thanx again for this golden oldie
i agree that the situation is as described here
both at this place & in many other places in the world
except for the interpretation of the diagonal path of the boundary
for unless this interpretation is actually written into a law
somewhere
& therefore necessary
there is no need or reason to assume vertical differentiation
& thus to break with all the established precedents
but quite the contrary
& just because boundaries are presumed to continue vertically
it seems to me more natural for the border to just follow the
outlines of the bridge or other interruption
from thalweg to centerline & back to thalweg
as the border must to cohere with this principle & itself at once
so it seems to me the assertion quoted below is only an
interpretation & remains to be proved by a legal quotation
then i will say uncle & give up on this simpler interpretation
while i admit
until one or the other is proved
both are only interpretations
but thats what i have been saying all this time
we havent yet seen an example that has been proved
many claims but no proof
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
<smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> Normally, boundaries are only two-dimensional, and as far as I
know
> everything straight below and above the surface belongs to the
> country that IS that surface. I don't know of any lower or upper
> limitations of national soil (centre of the earth??) or airspace
> (outermost atmosphere??), but I think the boundaries "up" and
"down"
> are at right-angles with those on the surface of the earth (of
course
> not when the boundary is on a slope, but I think you know what
I
> mean). But in a book I recently bought on a second-hand book
market,
> I found this item about the benl boundary in the river Meuse:
>
> "The sovereignty of both riverine states extends to the thalweg;
at
> bridges, however, the boundary is in the middle of the central
arch
> of the bridge, a point which doesn't coincide with the thalweg
below.
> An invisible line from the thalweg below the bridge to the point
in
> the middle of the central arch of the bridge is the imaginary
> boundary line. This imaginary line practically never is at right-
> angles with the water of the Meuse. This can only be if the
thalweg
> is right in the middle, which practically never is the case. The
> imaginary three-dimensional line is at a constantly shifting
angle
> with both river and bridge, as the thalweg is constantly
shifting."
> (from "De grens gemarkeerd, Grenspalen en grenskantoren
aan de
> landzijde", by Paul Spapens and Kees van Kemenade, Hapert,
1992, page
> 34)
>
> Are there any other examples of oblique (vis-a-vis the vertical)
> boundary lines? Perhaps also below the (ground or water)
surface?
>
> Any ideas, anyone?
>
> Peter S.