Subject: Re: cnkpru 1:200.000<br/>
Date: Nov 26, 2003 @ 12:27<br/>
Author: Peter Smaardijk (&quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="12467.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="12472.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic12455.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="12470.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="12472.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-925488877">--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;m06079&quot; &lt;barbaria_longa@h...&gt; <br/>
wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; & thanx again peter now that i have really studied & appreciated <br/>
 </span></blockquote>this <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; seamless text<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; but as you indicated<br/>
&gt; there still seems to be some question<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; first they talk about a cnkp joint area<br/>
&gt; but then they talk about a tripoint<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; & we know from the trilines of the delu condo areas <br/>
&gt; that there would be no single tricountry point<br/>
&gt; but a tricountry line with 2 bidominial tricountry points at its <br/>
 </span></blockquote>ends<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; nor could i find the mentioned monument numbers on this probably <br/>
&gt; older map<br/>
&gt; & thus still cant visualize what the condo area might look like<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; any ideas<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; nevertheless <br/>
&gt; there certainly appears to be reason to hope this is a real deal<br/>
&gt; if i am not mistaken<br/>
&gt; our fifth or seventh in this rare international condo category<br/>
&gt; together with<br/>
&gt; 2 delu<br/>
&gt; 2 esfr<br/>
&gt; aeom &<br/>
&gt; eshoni<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>The treaty deals with &quot;the&quot; tripoint, not with the condominium, and <br/>
although I can see that you can&#39;t really deal with the tripoint <br/>
without taking into account the condominium, the problem seems to be <br/>
that the condominium isn&#39;t very well - if at all - described. So the <br/>
only thing we can assume is that the condominium exists. The only <br/>
point that can be located with certainty in that case is (CNKP)KPRU. <br/>
The line described in the agreement, which marks the end of the <br/>
condominium, looks like to be only instrumental in defining this <br/>
point (where it crosses the other line - the thalweg KPRU boundary). <br/>
I agree that (CNKP)KPRU is only half of the story, but it looks like <br/>
being the maximum attainable here. I suspect that the treaty was more <br/>
important to Russia than to the other two countries: Russia closed a <br/>
gap in its border. The gap consisted of 1) the last stretch of KPRU <br/>
between KPRU marker pair no. 1 and (CNKP)KPRU and 2) the (CNKP)RU <br/>
border between (CNKP)KPRU and CNRU marker no. 423.<br/>
<br/>
Whether that last marker is the other tripoint, CN(CNKP)RU, remains <br/>
an open question. If the condominium border follows the river bank, <br/>
it can&#39;t be, unless the marker is on the very edge of the land and <br/>
half in the river. But I don&#39;t believe that is the case.<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.</div>