well since i promised to answer even myself
& there are also still these outstanding questions from both my alter
eguy & my doppleganger
& i love these long threads besides
i would say first to mike here that everything is actually everyones
land in reality because the world is equally free for all
but as for de jure everyones land
apart from the widely recognized high seas human heritage area
& the somewhat less widely recognized antarctic human heritage area
we really cant presume this same de jure quality of everyones land to
exist just anywhere there happens to be an overlapping or multiple
claim
however i have encountered at least 2 underlapping claim areas that
do have this distinction of being true terra nullius
or no mans land
or at the very least they are terra neutri or the land of neither
& of course we have modernized & politically corrected & respun &
perhaps clarified all these traditional terms into everyones land
including everyones water & everyones ice
or at least they are terra neutri or the land of neither
1 of these 2 cases occurs in offshore waters on caus
& i suppose in a way it is just an irruption of the high seas default
regime in low seas
& so it doesnt get oohed & ahhed over too much as being anything very
remarkable
& btw there may be a couple of other such irruptions off the west
coast of south america
i am not sure
but i think at least one most remarkable outbreak of a putative
everyones land has actually occurred this side of antarctica
in fact along the disputed inpk line
where some dry land albeit possibly glaciated still has no owner
except for all of us who correctly perceive it as everyonese
sovereign territory
but i mention these 2 or 4 cases
or however many there are
precisely to raise the question of how many such underlapping claim
areas there might actually be on the planet
whether offshore or particularly onshore
since all these certainly do appear to represent the eruptions of
everyones land
which i think you are anticipating here in your question mike
& to mike i would answer
tho i know you asked jack
who must be off partying now or i am sure he would have answered
already
that we have found & confirmed so many inaccuracies in the usgs topos
& presume so many others must exist yet unfound
that we know we cant rely exclusively on their depictions
but they have proved tolerably accurate on details like this far more
often than not
so you have a very putative 50 footer there
plus or minus maybe 10 feet
in the absence of any better evidence
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> yes beautiful thanx again
> understood
> & i can read most romance with a dictionary & instinct
>
> both of which together tell me about alveo that it is basically
just
> the spanish word for thalweg
>
> nothing fancy or mysterious here i think
>
> so yes i could not have been counting this condo in my census
>
> therefore unless the lost condo of my mind ever is found to exist
> our world appears to have no more than 7 condominial territories
> of which 1 is tridominial
> all as originally lassooed far below in this thread
> except of course that eshoni is fips
> doh
> when i should have said hnnisv in proper iso
>
> & thanx for bearing with me on this
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Kaufman"
> <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > Rereading my post, the translation might lead to a little
confusion
> > here. To clear it up: I think the author suggests two things:
1.
> > the waters can adapt to Article XXI and be under the rule of
> Alveo.
> > 2. there can be a condominium.
> >
> > -Mike K.
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
> > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > Yes - that's why I said the "suggested BR-UY condo."
> > >
> > > Part 7 of this study is pretty much the author's view
> > > on what should/could be done to resolve the conflict.
> > > His idea is shown in the map in that section,
> > > including the community of waters ("comunidade das
> > > aguas Brasil/Uruguai" in Portuguese). So here he is
> > > suggesting a condominium. In English below is the
> > > translation of the last paragraph of Part 7
> > > (Las...terrestre):
> > >
> > > "The waters to the south of Isla Brasilera, in
> > > agreement established in the Juridical Statute - 1933,
> > > in its Article XXI, are waters in the rule/government
> > > of "Alveo" (= Mother of the River), or it (can
> > > possibly) be a community of waters in which the
> > > jurisdiction of each (country) of the river bank
> > > reaches up to the opposite river bank but without
> > > reaching/overtaking its (the other country's)
> > > terrestrial/land part."
> > >
> > > What's interesting is this Article XXI which claims
> > > the waters are under the jurisdiction of the "Mother
> > > of the River." I did not see any reference to this
> > > anywhere else in the document. Maybe a potential
> > > enclave of Everyone's Land? :)
> > >
> > > -Mike K.
> > >
> > > --- acroorca2002 <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> > > http://companion.yahoo.com/