also the texts of the agreements are evidently available online
for any further corroboration anyone might want
please
i mean
if anyone wants to just check them for us
even without slaving to polish them
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
<barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> ok thanx
> & wonderful to see the progressive ideas & tries of a fellow
> seeker too
>
> & i do assume these new improved data are indeed at least
> more nearly correct
> which i think we practically must assume
> at least for the time being
> & even if only for the sake of seeing where they may lead
> since he seems no less careful & punctilious than ourselves
>
> & it is especially good to be relieved of the earlier illusion that
all
> 3 obelisks define the circle of which the tripoint is the center
> for these new data mean the circle is actually defined by only
the
> cz & pl obelisks & central tripoint
>
> the sk obelisk isnt part of nor anywhere near the definitive
circle
> which thus actually boils down to just a definitive triangle
>
> so again assuming these new improved data are indeed
correct
> hahaha
> we can forget the circle per se & focus on the triangle
>
>
> it is good also to be reminded that our fellow seeker & writer of
> these progressive compilations was of the opinion that the
> tripoint may well have been in the brook
> but that since the installation of the obelisks in 1995 the tripoint
> has become geometrically determinate rather than necessarily
> defined in any way by the brook itself any more
>
> indeed his belief that a linden was planted at the tripoint in
1990
> & my surmise that it could even today still mark the exact spot
> could tend to rule out the creek bottom per se
>
> & could tend to advance the crazy but still possible idea that the
> obelisks are all pointing toward & facing just this linden tree
>
> & for starters
> our next visitors could simply pace off the 27 or 28 giant steps
> down from the cz & pl obelisks just to see if there isnt a 14 year
> old linden tree waiting for us in that general vicinity
> if not at that precisely triangulated point
>
> or just to see
> if not this tree
> then what actually is there at that exactly measured point
>
> but regardless of the tree or its placement or fate or relevance
> we do now seem to have a clear & simple way to advance the
try
>
> dont you agree
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
> <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > True, but I found out that the Czech website was altered after
> Pepijn
> > made this translation, so he can't be blamed (check the old
text
> on
> > http://tinyurl.com/2g2es ). Now my Czech is not very good, but
I
> > understand that
> >
> > 1. The CZ and PL markers are 15.05 m. apart (this may be
> 15.5 m., see
> > below)
> > 2. Both CZ and PL markers are at a distance of 73.8 m from
> the SK
> > marker
> > 3. The distances to the real tripoint are:
> > CZ marker - CZPLSK: 27.9 m.
> > PL marker - CZPLSK: 27.9 m.
> > SK marker - CZPLSK: 46.6 m.
> > 4. The CZPL border runs in between the CZ and PL markers,
> at a
> > distance of 4.26 m. from the PL marker, and a distance of
> 11.24 m.
> > from the CZ marker (totals 15.5 m., and that is why I think
15.05
> m.
> > is an error).
> >
> > Maybe you (or Pepijn, if he has the time) can verify, correct
> and/or
> > add to this.
> >
> > Peter S.
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Petter Brabec
> > <pete2784west@y...> wrote:
> > > Nice translation job and it spares me a job : ). But even you
> can
> > see, that some pretty important sentences about distances
> and
> > geometrical facts are left out in the translation. Just check it
out
> > and you'll see what I mean. I believe, that these parametres
> and
> > distances around the CZPLSK tripoint will make the map
from
> the
> > Slovakian geodetic atlas, that Jesper posted, much clearer.
> > >
> > > Petter
> > >
> > > Peter Smaardijk <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/6091
> > >
> > > Peter S. (acting as Pepijn H. ;-))
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Petter Brabec
> > > <pete2784west@y...> wrote:
> > > > Hallo, at this link, in Czech, the locals explain how the
> process
> > > of setting up the monoliths around the tripoint went, all the
> > > necessary measures and other trivia.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.volny.cz/obec.hrcava/trojmezi.html
> > > >
> > > > At the present moment, I'm unable to translate it, so
> anybody
> > who's
> > > interested can give it a shot. Otherwise, give me a day or
two,
> and
> > > I'll translate the core theme that, as I understand it from the
> > > confusion up to now, is of interest to you.
> > > >
> > > > Petter
> > > >
> > > > Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > I think the 1st three pics are CZ instead of SK.
> > > > Because the Sk monument was across the larger of the
2
> > > > streams and all by itself.
> > > > Picture 2 - the small marker was actually on the CZ-PL
> > > > border - direct marker here.
> > > > Picture 5 - my initial guess was that it looked along
> > > > CZ-PL and that it was the PL marker. So now we have
> > > > three different possibilites here! Really this is a
> > > > confusing pic for me. Perhaps it looks at the SK
> > > > marker from the tp? But this would not be along a
> > > > border, just SK territory.
> > > >
> > > > --- Jesper Nielsen <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > > > > I have already written to the site authors
> > > > > requesting a better quality map,
> > > > > plus the other tripoints. Still wating patiently.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am very interested in seeing especially CZPLSK in
> > > > > a better scale, as I too
> > > > > find it difficult too see what's going on, even
> > > > > after being their in person.
> > > > > I don't recall all spots.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please find enclosed the CZPLSK map with my arrows.
> > > > > The blue arrow shows the
> > > > > angle of which the photo on
> > > > >
> > > >
http://pikomat.mff.cuni.cz/fotky/tabor/1996/f01/24hrcava.html
> > > > > was taken.
> > > > >
> > > > > The red arrow show where I believe I was sitting
> > > > > pointing to the ground
> > > > > facing south, which probably is not the tripoint
> > > > > judging from the map. Looks
> > > > > like it's further east. But it's a very difficult
> > > > > tripoint because it's
> > > > > inside forest and down a valley. It would have been
> > > > > nice to have known this
> > > > > map before we went there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rolf's site gives a good view af all three tp
> > > > > markers at
> > > > >
> > > > http://www.vasa.abo.fi/users/rpalmber/BordersCRPS.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > picture 1, the PL tp marker left, SK right. Facing
> > > > > south. The crew is
> > > > > walking N on the path going up a long the border to
> > > > > the road.
> > > > >
> > > > > picture 2, closeup on the PL and SK tp markers. I
> > > > > wonder if Mike Kaufman
> > > > > noted what the small red hat markers said.
> > > > >
> > > > > picture 3, closeup of SK marker
> > > > >
> > > > > picture 5, I think Rolf is wrong here. This is
> > > > > facing S from the TP and show
> > > > > the CZ tp marker. I remember the red hat marker
> > > > > still said CS, so I must
> > > > > have been an indirect marker from CSPL.
> > > > >
> > > > > picture 6, looks very different from mine??
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a picture facing east from the tripoint (or
> > > > > where I belived it was).
> > > > > Want to see it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jesper
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:37 PM
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re:
ATHUSK/CZPLSK/ATCZSK
> > > > > border maps
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper
> > > > > Nielsen"
> > > > > > <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > http://www.atlaskrajiny.sk/sk/myimages/2_sub_2.jpg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > these are lovely
> > > > > > & i wish their 2 remaining sister diagrams will
> > > > > arrive soon too
> > > > > >
> > > > > > of course atczsk is the greatest charmer
> > > > > > having been selected as point 2 on gcebe
> > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/graenser/tripoints
> > > > > > & then again as point 1 on geebe
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > http://www.geocities.com/graenser/geebe/tripoints.htm
> > > > > > with some apparent improvement
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the other diagrams are harder for me to see &or
> > > > > read tho
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for example could you show on the czplsk diagram
> > > > > > where you are situated in the geebe point 2 pic
> > > > > above
> > > > > > & where the monuments shown in the link below are
> > > > > situated
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
http://pikomat.mff.cuni.cz/fotky/tabor/1996/f01/24hrcava.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which btw i found at your site too
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & what is the cause of my double vision on 2 of
> > > > > the vectors in the
> > > > > > athusk diagram
> > > > > > aka gcebe point 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ny versjon av Yahoo! Messenger
> > > > Nye ikoner og bakgrunner, webkamera med superkvalitet
> og dobbelt
> > så
> > > morsom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ny versjon av Yahoo! Messenger
> > > Nye ikoner og bakgrunner, webkamera med superkvalitet
og
> dobbelt så
> > morsom