Mike - I think you must be recalling the suggested BR-UY condo shown
here in the bottom image:
http://www.info.lncc.br/wrmkkk/uilhabe.html
Isla Brasilera is still disputed BR-UY.
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> 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.