> i am still puzzled why such indirect demarcation
> would be used on
> completely dry land
>
> & also what makes these particular markers into
> witness markers
> rather than normal definitive boundary markers
In case of the first two markers, with the text
"Weiser fuer" on them, it is quite clear that they are
witness (or indirect) markers.
Firstly because the border official description
states that there is one on either side of the stream,
and that the border runs in the stream between them.
With the help of the line created by the two witness
markers, and the thalweg principle (if applicable in
this case, which I am not sure of), it should be
possible to determine exactly one point through which
the border must pass.
Secondly, beacuse field studies show that there are
actually two stones in situ, and moreover, they are
stamped with the text "Weiser fuer", which I believe
means witness marker.
In case of the "I �" marker the case is quite
different. Note that I am not sure that the picture
really shows "I �", but if not so the actual marker in
question should look something like it.
The official border description states that "I �" is
situated not on the border but away from it. Note the
cute little drawing to the right in the border
document. The document does not say how far away from
the border the "I �"-marker is, in fact, it does not
even define a point on the border from where to
measure such a distance.
Ergo, point "I", which is defined in the border
description as being part of the border, cannot be
fixed in space neither practically nor theoretically.
It simply states that the border follows the
ridge("dem Grat folgend"), and gives a hint that this
ridge with the border on it is some short distance in
a general southwesterly direction from "I �".
> did the terrain preclude the use of direct markers
Yes, I believe so. I think that on the other end of
the small passage in the mountain ("der Felstunnel"),
i. e. the end that we cannot see on the picture, there
is a terrifyingly steep drop. This remains to be
investigated, so here is yet another call for all good
men to come to the aid of.., well, you know.
> also what kind of directions are given & where are
> they given to get
> you from the witness markers to the actual boundary
> points they purport
> to witness
See above. As we have seen, in one case no such
directions are given.
However, there are some more peculiar circumstances to
this specific border.
The border on the very mountaintop around the
quadripoint is sparsely marked, to say the least.
Whereas in the lower areas it is quite densely marked,
in some places with no more than a few meters between
intermediary markers.
On the top the border simply follows the cliff, so it
meanders along the ridge and is anything but simple to
determine in the field. Yet, at least a few border
markers are fairly new, with hightech coating and the
usual line-dot-line on top which is supposed to show
the border exactly.
Together with these we have the century-old or more
markers 110, "I �" and possibly one or two more.
One cannot but wonder, whether the old markers are
kept and incorporated in the now official border
description out of piety, cultural interest,
conservatism or any other honorable motivation, more
than absolute geodetic need.
Finally, if there really is a steep drop behind "I �"
I strongly suggest that the next party to visit the
spot bring equipment to affix a warning sign nearby.
If there is no room for a multilingual sign, then use
whatever word of warning that you think will be
understood by all borderfreaks. May I humbly suggest
"Pozor"? Then, for once, it would serve its purpose.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html