also it may actually be useful to bear in mind here
the term
indefinite boundary
has a definite meaning
or rather at least 3 possible definite meanings
either
a boundary that has been approximated because it has not yet
been officially surveyed
or
a boundary that has been approximated from outdated info
or
a boundary known to exist but for which accurate verification is
lacking
in this case damn could belong to either of the latter 2 of these 3
categories
since it is known to have followed the bois de sioux thalweg
which was at the time of the first survey & may coincidentally now
be again exactly 9 chains or 594 feet east of the witness mark
& that original thalweg could easily have accreted back to within
80 feet of the witness mark as presently depicted by usgs
before being frozen there forever at the time of the first avulsion
subsequent to the monumentation
& no matter whether it was a natural or manmade rechanneling
or if other avulsions followed it
etc etc
mnndsd was presumably frozen forever there & then
but we & the usgs just havent yet been able to identify the
moment or circumstances of that supposed first avulsion
tho they continue to depict it as if it might be verifiable somehow
& that is why i think we may find the county tax assessors quite
able to describe more or less exactly not only the geographic
proportions & results but even the exact circumstances & date of
that presumptive avulsion
since it was & is their business to keep track of such things
& their data may therefore not only be as definitive as any that are
available anywhere
but they also stand a chance of validating & vindicating the usgs
tripoint depiction here
in the meantime
i believe the most presumptive position we have
remains & is likely to continue simply as follows
the fact that the usgs mnndsd position appears to fall 80 feet
east of the witness post along the trace of a historic channel
does strongly suggest it accreted there 514 feet westward from
its original position by the time the first avulsion froze it as
depicted
probably many decades ago
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "bjbutlerus"
<bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> We have noticed it. In fact there are many examples of
"indefinite"
> state lines on the topo maps. I know of at least three state
> tri-points that are incorrectly depicted on the maps. Your
comment
> raises an interesting issue - is the boundary really indefinite, or
> did the USGS simply not know the definition when the map
was drawn?
> Boundaries seem to be the weakest element in USGS topo
maps, no doubt
> because they are imaginary features that don't show up on
aerial photos.
>
> BJB
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Has anybody noticed that, along MNND about two miles
north of the
> tripoint and
> > along MNSD about 3.5 miles south, the same map says
"indefinite
> boundary"? This
> > is a disclaimer by the feds saying, "Hey, we only put this
dotted
> line were we
> > did because we had to put it somewhere. Don't take it to the
bank!"
> >
> > Lowell
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "m donner" <maxivan82@h...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:00 AM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] mnndsd ideas
> >
> >
> > > just noticed on the mnndsd topo
> > > http://tinyurl.com/grbw
> > > wherever the elusive damn line & with it the tripoint may
actually
> fall
> > > today in terms of the ndsd line
> > > whether 594 feet east or 80 feet east or some other
distance east
> of the
> > > witness monument
> > > nevertheless
> > > in terms of the underlying public land system
> > > the tripoint will still fall along the south edge of a mnnd
> section & the
> > > north edge of a mnsd section
> > >
> > > these interstate sections btw & fyi are respectively
> > > section 34 of range 47 west in township 129 north
> > > to the north of the tripoint
> > > & section 3 of range 47 west in township 128 north
> > > to the south of the tripoint
> > >
> > >
> > > so first i have to wonder if the 2 sections or subsections
> involved have
> > > ever been legally subdivided by the river
> > > or by the damn line
> > > if different
> > > to produce in either case 4 unistate parcels of land all
meeting
> at the
> > > tripoint
> > > or whether the public land sections or subsections involved
remain
> undivided
> > > by the damn line
> > > & produce interstate parcels of land merely sandwiching
the tripoint
> > > while continuing to incorporate & straddle the river &or the
damn line
> > >
> > > but more to the point
> > > i also have to wonder exactly how the county land offices
have
> distributed
> > > or delineated the affected sections for dividing up the tax
bills
> > > regardless of whether the acreages are split between
different
> landowners or
> > > merely allocated for the benefit of single landholders
> > >
> > >
> > > & since these 2 sections arent the only mnnd & mnsd
sections
> requiring such
> > > treatment
> > > they should not present obscure & difficult cases to
research
> > > but rather i would expect them to represent routine
instances of a tax
> > > allocation method that must be used all along the bois de
sioux
> > > where the public land sections are routinely divided by the
river
> > >
> > > so my guess is that the tax assessors will not be put out or
> embarrassed at
> > > all by our questions
> > > but will have the answers to them readily available for us in
> their standard
> > > verbal &or platted descriptions
> > >
> > > we simply need to ask in wheaton mn
> > > where is the sw corner of the mentioned section 34 in
minnesota
> > > & where is the nw corner of the mentioned section 3 in
minnnesota
> > > while making sure that it is indeed the same point they give
us
> > > & then to ask for the corresponding corners on the other
side of
> the damn
> > > line
> > > in wahpeton nd & in sisseton sd respectively
> > > which will incidentally be the same as ndse & sdne
respectively
> > > making them that much easier to refer to & identify
> > > but again
> > > being careful that there is indeed full agreement & a single
> geoposition
> > >
> > > & with any luck all these data should agree & may well be
> obtainable by
> > > phone
> > >
> > > but in any case what fun even if they dont agree or cant be
had so
> easily
> > >
> > > any thoughts
> > >
> > >
__________________________________________________
_______________
> > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months
FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >