i think thats a disputed ownership there tho mike
rather than any kind of joint ownership
& i may have just been imagining this last one too
so really
to have maybe 5 or 7 is practically as good as having maybe 6 or 8
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Kaufman"
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> 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.