You say:
& i also agree it isnt clear whether the joint zone
extends all the way
to the korean bank
nor does it apparently matter to the russians
who have no such condo with korea
nor does it apparently matter for tripointing &or
trilining purposes
--> But this is not at all accurate. While the
location of CNKP-KP-RU may not be in question, the
locations and angles of its vectors certainly are.
Most people are interested in knowing what the
tripoint looks like, which country has which percent
of the tripoint (in terms of angles). In Jack's book,
he shows three simplified configurations on page iii.
People like to visualize the point in terms of the
surrounding territory.
If you want to say that this is not needed for
tripointing purposes, then:
1. We would have no need to talk about tripointing
stitches since they don't affect the point itself,
only one of the lines which come together to form the
point.
2. We would also have no need to discuss things like
which country has the smallest angular slice of a
tripoint, since only the point matters, not the angles
of the vectors.
3. All of our tries would have to be presented
without the "extraneous" information. Maps, pitcures,
etc - only showing 1 pixel centered on the point
itself, since the border-vectors composing them
apparently don't matter as you say.
Additionally, if the condo is the entire river, it
creates a (right angle) corner of CNKP that would not
exist if the condo is only half of the river. Corners
are often talked about in this forum, including by
you. So unless we can find out the exact dimensions
of the condo are we won't know if this corner exists
or not.
--->Yet stitches, relative percentages of tp slices,
and corners are all discussed here, and it seems to me
you too have joined in actively on these topics. The
question of whether or not the CNKP condo encompasses
the whole river or only half is certainly relevant.
--- acroorca2002 <
orc@...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "pete2784west"
> <
> petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> > As I understand it: The border marker 423 is
> originally Russian-
> > chinese only, but probably for the convenience of
> setting up a
> > borderline which ends in the middle of the river
> Tumen, this border
> > marker is taken as a starting point (cf. art.1).
> From this point the
> > line is perpendicular to the Chinese-korean
> borderline formed by the
> > middle of the main channel of the river Tumen. The
> waters of the
> > river behind the borderline going from border
> marker 423 to the
> > middle of the river are called "joint boundary
> water area of China
> > and Korea DPR". So the waters are joint, and it
> makes it easier for
> > the Korean border guards to shoot at people
> fleeing the country as
> > long as they are in the river, but once they get
> on the shore they
> > are in China only. The Chinese-korean borderline
> goes all the way
> > through the middle of the river channel up to the
> point where
> > Russia, China and KoreaDPR meet. Further down the
> stream of Tumen
> > river continues Russian-korean borderline being
> placed again in the
> > middle of the course of the Tumen river. We are
> still talking about
> > waters, no land. The tripoints are placed on both
> sides of the
> > river,
>
> i figure you must mean the tripoint markers here
> petter
>
> not the tripoints themselves
>
> but i agree we are really talking about 2 distinct
> tripoints here
> cncnkpru & cnkpkpru
>
>
> however
> these actual tripoints are simply at the 2 end
> points of the cnkp joint
> or condo zone cnkpru triline
>
> think of it as an ordinary tripoint halved or
> stretched into a triline
> between 2 semitripoints
>
> & one of those semitripoints is marked by monument 1
>
> & the other is the unmarked point where the sight
> line between monument
> 1 & monument 2 crosses the midchannel line
>
> so as i understand it
> marker 1 also serves with marker 2 to witness the
> entire triline
> including the unmarked end point & cosemitripoint at
> midchannel
>
> we have encountered something very much like this
> before with the delu
> condo trilines
>
> no biggie
>
> technically
> as was observed then
> all such trilines are dipunctitrilines
>
> or more technically still ditripunctitrilines
> meaning simply trilines with tripoints at each
> terminal
>
>
> & i also agree it isnt clear whether the joint zone
> extends all the way
> to the korean bank
> nor does it apparently matter to the russians
> who have no such condo with korea
> nor does it apparently matter for tripointing &or
> trilining purposes
>
> more insertions below
>
> but they are standing on the sovereign territories,
> either
> > Russia, China or Korea. Art. 4 states that every
> country is having
> > responsibility for one border marker each. The
> picture of
> > bordermarker 3 I've seen here, is Russian
> responsibility.
>
> technically 1 marker is on cncnkpru & 1 is in kp & 1
> is in ru
>
> >
> > So, reaching a tripoint here means getting wet and
> go fishing.
>
> not really
> as explained 1 tripoint is marked & the other is wet
>
> From
> > border marker no.1 on a straight line
> perpendicular to the middle of
> > the stream of the river Tumen, 306,9 m in to the
> water. Anyone
> > should feel pretty safe then :-). Then, still
> following the line,
> > one should get to the shores of the Korea DPR and
> hit the border
> > marker no.2. When still in the water and keeping
> the line aiming at
> > border marker no. 2, to the right you are still in
> the joint Chinese-
> > korean joint boundary water area. To the left you
> are still in the
> > water, but whether Russians and Koreans agreed to
> something similiar
> > as the chines and koreans, I don't know.
> >
> > I'm not clear about why the third border marker
> has been set up on
> > the Russian territory and whether this border
> marker is placed on
> > the same borderline drawn between border marker
> no. 1 (on Chinese-
> > russian border) and no. 2 (in Korea).
>
> clearly it is not on the line between markers 1 & 2
> but downstream
>
> more below
>
> This is why the final protocol
> > from 2002 is still needed.
> >
> > Petter
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> Kaufman
> > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > Witness marker 1 (aka CN-RU 423): We know this
> is
> > > exactly on the CN-RU boundary and is exactly on
> the
> > > point where CN-RU hits the CNKP condo
> (CN-CNKP-RU).
> > > So why is CNKP-KP-RU the official "state
> boundary
> > > meeting point of the three countries" (article
> 1,
> > > section 2 of the treaty in message 12459)?
>
> this end of the triline is the official meeting
> point of the 3
> countries just as much as the other end of the
> triline is the official
> meeting point
> & indeed just as much as the entire triline as a
> whole is the official
> meeting point
>
> isnt that lovely
>
> a line is a point
>
> & a point has become a line between 2 points
>
> Doesn't
> > > CN-CNKP-RU have just as much the same tripoint
> status
> > > since it is one of the 2 terminal points of the
> > > CNKP-RU triline?
>
> yes
>
> > > Also - I am unclear on the condo in this regard:
> Is
> > > the CNKP condo the entire river (1 in diagram)
> or just
> > > half of the river on the Chinese side (2 in
> diagram).
> > > I mean we know the triline only goes out to the
> middle
> > > of the main channel of the river, but couldn't a
> > > CNKP-KP line continue after that?
>
> we dont know
>
> nor does it actually matter for the purposes of our
> cnkpru chase
>
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: cnkpru - more
> > > > pictures
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Some more pics (they seem to connect):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p352.jpg
> > > > > >
> http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/nagune/p081.jpg
> > > >
> > > > this latter pic appears to be by far the best
> pic we
> > > > have
> > > >
> > > > & if the fence observed by jesper does indeed
> mark
> > > > cnru
> > > > then cnru marker 1 aka 423 should be on the
> bank at
> > > > the end of that
> > > > fence
> > > > slightly obscured by the foliage
> > > > unless that dark dot there near the sand flat
> is the
> > > > marker
> > > > yikes
> > > >
> > > > but in any case the triline should run from
> this
> > > > cncnkpru point 423
> > > > perpendicular to the bank & halfway across the
> > > > channel
> > > > to the unmarked cnkpkpru tripoint at the other
> end
> > > > of the triline
> > > >
> > > > does everybody see & get that
> > > > because i do believe we can visualize all this
> now
> > > > for the first time
> > > >
> > > > bravissimos all
> > > > in any case
> > > > > > Peter S.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools