yes good tweak
tho the 1935 thru 1941 survey effort was never ratified by anyone
hence triply unlikely to have gotten a vertical stone
& i trust you still recall how humble the pseudoctmari marker of
that vintage is
in fact dont you have a pic of it
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "bjbutlerus"
<bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> One tweak: sometimes stone monuments don't predate
ratification of a
> boundary - remember the 1853 marker remnant at MASW, or
should I say
> MSSW? It marked a boundary change not ratified by the US
Congress
> until 1855, although Massachusetts and New York ratified it in
1853.
>
> BJB
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m donner"
<maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/gjlz
> > fresh news account based on old boundary book traces ctri
ruckus all
> the way
> > back to pequot war of 1638
> > so my earlier characterization of it as a tercentenary renewal
was
> actually
> > 65 years understated
> >
> > & a recent topozone search turned up 7 intermediate border
markers
> including
> > 5 roadstones within the 1840 bounds that define the primary
dispute area
> > namely the 6 miles of state line between hopkinton & north
stonington
> >
> > & since intermediate marks tend to reduce the breadth of the
area of
> > potential disagreement
> > it seems at first sight that the 22 acres in dispute could be
> substantially
> > reduced or completely eliminated if these auxiliary points are
allowed
>
> >
> > but they raise many questions i cant answer
> >
> > my guess is they are authentic bilateral installations
> > & of post 1840 but pre 1935 vintage
> > so unlikely to be disallowed
> >
> > at the same time
> > i have also seen late 20th century roadstones on ctri
> > which are probably bilateral replacements of earlier
damaged bilateral
> > intermediate markers
> > so stone dates alone dont necessarily suffice to determine
their
> validity
> >
> > but it is my belief that the unratified survey of 1935 thru 1941
is
> marked
> > only by humble copper discs & no standing stones at all
> >
> > the standing stones would have followed its ratification rather
than
> > preceded it
> >
> > so the more i look at this whole mess
> > the more the present dispute seems like just a bunch of
naive
> > misunderstandings about common border law by public
officials on
> both sides
> >
> > gis tech is not going to override the locations of historic
compact &
> > intermediate markers
> >
> > but from where else than such a blunder could those 22
acres have come
> >
> > so maybe i should just ask the officials which of all these
markers
> they are
> > using for their tax maps
> > & go take a look for myself
> >
> >
__________________________________________________
_______________
> > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months
FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail