indio ca
renewed thanx & bravos peter for this stunningly punctilious analysis
so i guess we can say there is a probable or a putative cnkp condo
& i think you have nailed its topology as well as possible for now
& overnight i may also have recalled a possible 6th or 8th member of
this elite little list of international condos as begun below
or perhaps there is a whole new constellation of them in this new case
i forget
was it a riverine archipelago or something on aruy or arpa or arbr
dang
i can never keep them straight anyway
but can anyone remind me if this is real
or what is what in this last case too
just to complete the probable global condo list
since or rather if we really can now
talking of co tho
myself i actually woke up in coachella this morning
which comes just before coalinga & coarsegold in the california index
before realizing the last full service laundromat before the
wilderness was back here in eendio
whoops
so it is back 3 spaces again
plus a carwash & insurance payment etc etc
& i will at least blend into the woodwork a little better now
a matter of no little importance btw
here in the land of the free & home of the brave
but having nailed continental & dry caw
& also cas
& incidentally a few of californias other corners too
as well as possible on previous tries
& while still puzzling over the exact location of the elusive can
i have determined to make a try for cae in the meantime
so as to prepare the way for completing a first known news tour of
the cardinal extremities of california
as soon as future research will enable such a culmination
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
<smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
> <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > wrote:
> > > & thanx again peter now that i have really studied &
appreciated
> > this
> > > seamless text
> > >
> > > but as you indicated
> > > there still seems to be some question
> > >
> > > first they talk about a cnkp joint area
> > > but then they talk about a tripoint
> > >
> > > & we know from the trilines of the delu condo areas
> > > that there would be no single tricountry point
> > > but a tricountry line with 2 bidominial tricountry points at
its
> > ends
> > >
> > > nor could i find the mentioned monument numbers on this
probably
> > > older map
> > > & thus still cant visualize what the condo area might look like
> > >
> > > any ideas
> > >
> > > nevertheless
> > > there certainly appears to be reason to hope this is a real deal
> > > if i am not mistaken
> > > our fifth or seventh in this rare international condo category
> > > together with
> > > 2 delu
> > > 2 esfr
> > > aeom &
> > > eshoni
> >
> > The treaty deals with "the" tripoint, not with the condominium,
and
> > although I can see that you can't really deal with the tripoint
> > without taking into account the condominium, the problem seems to
> be
> > that the condominium isn't very well - if at all - described. So
> the
> > only thing we can assume is that the condominium exists. The only
> > point that can be located with certainty in that case is (CNKP)
> KPRU.
> > The line described in the agreement, which marks the end of the
> > condominium, looks like to be only instrumental in defining this
> > point (where it crosses the other line - the thalweg KPRU
> boundary).
> > I agree that (CNKP)KPRU is only half of the story, but it looks
> like
> > being the maximum attainable here. I suspect that the treaty was
> more
> > important to Russia than to the other two countries: Russia
closed
> a
> > gap in its border. The gap consisted of 1) the last stretch of
KPRU
> > between KPRU marker pair no. 1 and (CNKP)KPRU and 2) the (CNKP)RU
> > border between (CNKP)KPRU and CNRU marker no. 423.
> >
> > Whether that last marker is the other tripoint, CN(CNKP)RU,
remains
> > an open question. If the condominium border follows the river
bank,
> > it can't be, unless the marker is on the very edge of the land
and
> > half in the river. But I don't believe that is the case.
> >
> > Peter S.
>
> In http://www.pnp.ru/pg_nomers/20865.htm (Parlamentskaja gazeta),
it
> is mentioned that a draft "additional protocol-description" of the
> CNRU border, eastern section, is approved by the Russian
government.
> It deals with CNRU in between CNRU marker no. 423 and the newly
> established tripoint (by the tripartite agreement). There is no
talk
> of the condominium whatsoever here, and the protocol is presented
by
> the head of the Russian delegation to the joint Russian-Chinese
> demarcation commission, so no mention of Koreans here.
>
> This official, Genrich Kireev, says that the aim of the additional
> protocol-description was to describe in detail, including the exact
> co-oordinates, the location of the tripoint. "(...) the tripoint is
> located in the middle of the main channel of the Tumannaja river,
> 306,9 m. from boundary marker no. 423".
>
> Real information on the condominium is probably only available in
> Chinese sources. Or someone could browse through all .kp websites
on
> the internet :-))
>
> Peter S.