yes i agree
but given the difficulty of exact measurement on steep terrain
anyway
my guess is we can already find the truest available czplsk
by just eyeballing along the perpendicular pyramid edges at the
apexes of the cz & pl obelisks
so as to determine the intersection of the projections of these
respective sight lines
somewhere down in the hollow
whatever the horizontal &or vertical distances may prove to be
it is just a question of whether the obelisks were actually
intended & erected with enough care to be used in this way
also pending the necessary protocol text
we can still continue to party down here
by continuing to accept both the official tripoint diagram & the
most recent text by the unknown trypointer
while taking note of any contradictions
so
further study of the diagram below reveals the actual border lines
may possibly be indicated by the zz symbol
& if so
then the tripoint may actually be depicted in 1 of 2 places
one
apparently in the larger creek just above the confluence
is marked by a line junction just to the east of jespers red arrow
tip line junction
& the other
at the next line junction to the north
& evidently on the bank of both creeks just above the confluence
appears to be marked by a tiny triangle
it is noteworthy that both of these possible versions of the tripoint
are visually equidistant from the pair of points on the banks of
the tributary creek that are apparently marked by the symbol v
& which could thus well indicate 2 of the obelisks
however there is no way to fit the third obelisk into the drawing
if the relative distances between them are truly as stated
a third obelisk may be indicated
but far to the south & nowhere near the stated intervals
so it seems a grain of salt is still very much in order
both for the tripoint diagram & the trypointing accounts
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> which may mean
> the true road to the true czplsk
> now loops back thru bratislava
> or at least thru a phonebooth
>
> perhaps to pursue the sources of the slovakian tripoint
diagrams
> &or of the equally fascinating slovakian trypointing texts
> simultaneously
> but certainly to seek the needed source protocol document
> within the primary & host government there
>
> for now that we see the clear possibility of it
> there is every reason to want to check our sources
> & focus now on getting these bedrock data if we can
> before proceeding to try for the tripoint again
> dont you agree
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
> <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > The CZSK boundary agreement is at
> >
>
http://www.podnikame.cz/zakony9597/index.php3?co=Z1997246
> , but what
> > we need is the protocol, mentioned in this agreement,
named
> "Protokol
> > o bodu styku státních hranic České republiky,
Slovenské
> republiky a
> > Polské republiky "Beskydy"" ("Protocol on the meeting point
of
> the
> > state boundary of the Czech republic, the Slovak republic,
and
> the
> > Polish republic "Beskydy"") (Part I, art. 2, h). Unfortunately, I
> > haven't been able to find it online.
> > Peter S.
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
> <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > wrote:
> > > 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