1. DZLYTN
http://www.manntaylor.com/FtSaintM.jpg
(this could be DZLY and LYTN or just DZLY as per msg.
13465)
2. DZLY
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs1b.php
3. LYNE
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs2.php
4.-15. BJNG (12 of these?)
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS091.pdf
16. NENG
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS093.pdf
(but not evident)
17.-??? MXUS (msg. 13937; how many are there?)
SO,
We can't put a firm number on it. Depends on 3
variables:
1. Where DZLYTN falls. If there is a short LYTN we
have 18 not 17.
2. Also, do we know 12 for BJNG? So it would be more
or less if not exactly 12.
3. And how many more arcs for MXUS on the channelized
Rio Grande?
I am not yet counting ITVA since I think here we would
be talking about features (not figures) which can not
be perfectly geometrically true arcs.
--- aletheiak <
aletheiak@...> wrote:
> arif
> i too believed in this arc report about easternmost
> gmsn
> & may even have been responsible for starting the
> rumor about it
> but i have been unable to substantiate it
>
> this border is set at a fixed distance from the
> river on both sides
> presumably from both its banks rather than from its
> thalweg
> just like the manh state line is offset from the
> merrimack
> except doubly so
> as you probably also realized
> & can see here
>
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/gambia_pol88.jpg
>
> however
> as beguilingly arclike as all this may seem
> such a regime would not actually presuppose any true
> arcs at all
>
> except
> i would agree
> conceivably a single one centered at the headspring
>
>
> however
> the source of the gambia river is not in gambia
> but in senegal
> as you can also see in the above map
> & therefore the simple offset regime couldnt project
> such a
> simple terminal arc sector
>
> only by varying the apparent regime & reducing it to
> a single
> offset center point in the middle of the river
> could such a final true arc have been produced
>
>
> also the map doesnt show any such terminal rounding
> or bulge
> as one would expect in such a case
> but quite the contrary
> something more like a foreshortening or truncation
> of the basic regime
> & indeed it makes the cutoff point look quite
> arbitrary & artificial
> & somehow distinctly at odds with the basic offset
> regime
>
>
> so at this point i think the existence of an arc on
> gmsn hasnt
> been & probably wont be demonstrated
> & was just a wishful thought & misconception in the
> first place
>
>
> mind you
> i dont actually know how the gmsn border does
> accomplish this
> remarkable turnabout at its east end if not in some
> approximation of an arc or arcs
>
> & i can still imagine how it might somehow involve a
> true arc or 2
> based at some known terminal cross section of the
> river
>
> but i dont believe there is any text that specifies
> to this effect
> nor any map that suggests it
>
>
>
> meanwhile
> i have scoured the ghost frgb lines of the period
> & have discovered nothing new
> so our world class border arc census is again
> stalled
> at a top count of about 20 now & perhaps forever
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Arif Samad
> <fHoiberg@y...> wrote:
> > Not sure, but isn't there some (at least one arc)
> in
> > the border of Senegal and Gambia. As far as I
> > thought, the Easternmost point is directly east of
> the
> > Center of the arc in that border.
> > Arif
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail