You wrote:
i imagine there would have had to be some prior cnpk
agreement
regarding the exact borders of the joint zone
which specified marker 423 aka 1 as its corner post
--> I am not aware of any joint zone agreements on the
Tumen River ending at marker 423 between China and
PAKISTAN... ;-)
--- acroorca2002 <
orc@...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "pete2784west"
> <
> petter.brabec@c...> wrote:
> > Funny, the decree from 1998 does not mention the
> 306,9 m from the
> > border marker 1.
>
> whoops
> you are right
>
> & i thought thats where you were quoting it from
> hahaha
> but the text in message 12459 states no such
> distance
>
> er
> so where did you get that number from then
>
>
> but anyway
> lets not get bogged down over that detail
> because we dont seem to need it anyway
> & the text does seem to give us all we do need
>
>
> but please notice that tho it carefully defines the
> line of
> delimitation of the boundary water areas of the 3
> countries
> it speaks in terms of these waters only as ru & kp &
> joint cnkp
>
> it doesnt address cn waters at all
> only joint cnkp waters
>
> very important distinction to notice
>
> > If I follow you line of reasoning, this is because
>
> > the entire line between the two markers (No.1 and
> No.2) is a triline
> > shared by all three states
>
> no i dont mean this
>
> i do mean the triline is shared by all 3 states
> with cnkp jointly abutting it on one side & ru on
> the other
>
> & i do believe the triline begins at marker 1
> at the left bank
> as stated in the text
>
> but i dont believe the triline can extend past
> midchannel upon the
> direct perpendicular line from marker 1 to marker 2
> whatever that distance happens to be
>
> whether that specified number of meters or otherwise
>
>
> the joint cnkp zone itself may extend from bank to
> bank
> or in other words all the way from marker 1 to
> marker 2
>
> we dont know this tho
> nor need to know
>
> but since kpru begins at midchannel
> the triline per se must end there
> at cnkpkpru
>
> more below
>
> > , but there is a slight problem and
> > correct me if I misunderstood something: In art 1.
> nr.2 is says
> > that "... state boundary meeting point of the
> three countries is
> > located on the point where the line delimiting the
> boundary water
> > areas of the three countries intersects the middle
> line of the main
> > channel of the river." To me, this is the actual
> and factual
> > tripoint. At this point, as it says in art.3 nr.1
> at the end "...a
> > boundary merkar on the state boundary meeting
> point of the three
> > countries, which is located on the water level of
> the Tumannaja
> > river, will not be erected." That's what I meant
> by getting wet and
> > going fishing. The tripoint is on the water level.
>
> yes i see & agree there is a slight problem
> as you say
> & i believe it is not you who need correcting but
> the treaty writers
> hahahaha
>
> they think they have a triline with a tripoint at
> only one end
> the wet end
> cnkpkpru
>
> but they really have a triline with tripoints on
> both ends
>
> they focus in the text upon the wet unmarked
> tripoint alone
> & yet ironically they can do this only after having
> first anointed
> marker 1 as the dry terminal of the triline aka
> cncnkpru tripoint
>
> a fact which they then proceed to ignore
>
> i believe this is a defect in the text
>
> a stick must have 2 ends
>
> & the text acknowledges both ends but then spaces
> one of them out
>
> more below
>
> > However, on the land both on Korean and
> Russian-chinese river bank,
> > there are the tripoint markers and that's
> something else than the
> > actual tripoint. The actual tripoint on the water
> level is located
> > on the line between the two tripoint markers no.1
> and no.2. There is
> > no mentioning about how far is the actual tripoint
> from the two
> > tripoint markers either.
> >
> > Another thing, and interesting enough is that the
> border marker 423
> > or the first tripoint marker, is still a border
> marker between China
> > and Russia only. The Korea is not to be mentioned
> on it. This could
> > mean as I suggested last time, that this border
> marker 423 has been
> > chosen for convenience purpose in order to
> delineate the factual
> > tripoint on the water level, but not actually
> giving a territorial
> > claim on the boundary line to the Koreans.
>
> i agree with nearly all the above
> but given the text we do have
> i imagine there would have had to be some prior cnpk
> agreement
> regarding the exact borders of the joint zone
> which specified marker 423 aka 1 as its corner post
>
> That claim is perhaps
> > heralded by the erection of tripont marker no.3,
> where on the one
> > side is written Korea.
>
> here is where we begin to differ
>
> i dont attribute any definitive significance to
> marker number 3 but
> imagine it to be just for witness or protocol
>
> the triline is already fully defined by markers 1 &
> 2
> in conjunction with the midchannel point between
> them
>
> Yet it stands solely on the Russian
> > territory. One might guess that the tripoint
> marker no.3 is placed
> > on the line between markers no.1 and no.2 but
> closer to the river
> > bank designating the start of the line dividing
> the river waters
> > between the joint Chinese-korean and Russian. If
> the tripoint border
> > marker no.3 is placed inside Russian territory,
> then it has to be in
> > some angle to the line between the other two
> tripoint markers.
> > Otherwise the tripoint marker no.3 is placed de
> facto on the Chinese-
> > russian border. But again no specification about
> it in the decree.
>
> i dont see any of these guesses as necessary or very
> likely
>
> also geometrically
> marker 3 cant possibly fall on the direct line
> between markers 1 & 2
>
> > The art 1 nr.1 says something about the main
> points deciding the
> > direction of the line. It says that, ...a straight
> line, running
> > perpendicular from boundary marker no.423 on the
> Russian-Chinese
> > state boundary to the line in the middle of the
> main channel of the
> > river in between the two river banks." If the
> tripoint marker no. 3
> > is not on this straight line, then it can not run
> perpendicular to
> > the actual tripoint in the river.
>
> i dont see the correctness or even the need for this
> line of reasoning
>
> > The line can not be considered as the same as the
> actual tripoint.
>
> i think we must again face the fact with cnkpru that
> we have already
> faced & well digested with both bedelu & defrlu
>
> our tripoint is a triline
>
> & at the ends of the triline are
> tripoints
>
> or if you prefer
> semi tripoints
>
> but thats the basic topology
>
> a ditripunctitriline
>
> it is geometrically determined
>
> & we cant help it or change it
>
> but i just think the writers of this cnkpru treaty
> were a little naive
> & clumsy about it
> & you are rightly picking up on this
>
> > None of the treaty parties mention it like this.
> Art 3. no.1 says
> > that, ...the state boundary meeting point of the
> three countries
> > will be demarcated by three markers...". To me, it
> does not mean
> > that every tripoint marker is the actual tripoint
> or that the line
> > is a point in itself, but that the tripoint
> markers only demarcate
> > the actual tripoint. The demarcation determines
> the actual tripoint
> > on the water level of Tumannja river. Thus, the
> tripoint markers are
> > mathematical, physical and geographical constructs
> with the sole
> > purpose of demarcating the actual tripoint.
>
> i agree with all this
> & refer it to the cnkpkpru tripoint
>
> but the text also indicates that marker 1 also marks
> the conjunction or
> tripoint of the cncnkpru water areas
>
> & moreover that the triline extends between these 2
> tripoints
>
> otherwise i cant see how to rationalize all this
> into a single picture
>
>
>
> & by way of footnote
> a tiny additional detail
>
> there is some reason to believe the cnkp joint area
> is wet only
>
> & thus it couldnt actually begin at marker 423 on
> the riverbank
> but rather only at the waterline very near this
> marker
>
> & this may technically reduce the length of the
> triline slightly
> & make its terminal point the bank itself rather
> than the marker
>
> but this is at most a mere quibble
>
>
> end of insertions
>
>
> >
> > Petter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > 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