aha
re bcidwa
on closer eamination bus&ss reveals
the original 1873 survey team which set the 177 idwa markers
was forced to stop work a mile short of the canadian border
due to winter weather & lack of food
& when the line was retraced in 1908
this book expressly states
per usgs bulletin 466 dated 1911
the idwa line was extended to the 49th parallel & tied to caus
monument 195
but whattt could
tied to
ever mean
not to mention the 49th parallel
the usgs topo
http://tinyurl.com/29amk
shows marker 177 the better part of a mile south of caus all right
but caus monument 195 is undoubtedly if very roughly 850 feet
east of bcidwa
& the published ibc coords for monument 195 confirm this usgs
depiction as essentially accurate
so my guess is that this bulletin 466
probably still gathering dust in the library of congress if anywhere
will at least state an authoritative position for bcidwa
whether it was marked in 1908 by a durable marker or not
as well as the exact distance from this point to caus marker 195
& with that info alone you might easily pay a very respectable
class b visit
or you might even get close enough to scour &or dig for some
artifact or trace of the work done in 1908
since the area has probably not been visited or disturbed since
except by the clear cutters
& thus there appears to still be a chance for an almost
inconceivable archeological visit class a
even if there never was any deliberate demarcation
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
<aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> both of these tripoints are still believed to be virgins
>
>
> & as topozone indicates
> neither is believed to be marked
> except perhaps as speculated by brian in message 6846
>
>
> note however that bus&ss states there are only the 177 idwa
> markers in the series shown on the topos
> so we cant presume there is a forgotten number 178 anywhere
> let alone at bcidwa
>
> on the other hand
> the idea of a forgotten bcidmt marker in the form of a
hypothetical
> idmt marker number 1 is slightly more plausible
>
>
> in any case i think you are right to prepare for 2 unmarked
points
> & you can always be pleasantly surprised if you do find
> something at the supposed locations
>
>
>
> the abcde classifications of relative success mentioned by
mike
> have been generally used
>
> but for unmarked points
> there is no objective standard or standard objective
> other than the best available truth
>
> & because every situation is unique
> you can only do the best you can do in each case
> to create the level of objective accuracy you desire & believe
> possible
>
>
> & indeed
> tho i havent unzipped or checked or grasped all your data
> i myself am leery of introducing possibly spurious levels of
> accuracy
>
> & i think brian may have been right to hold the line at integral
> degminsecs of lat & long
> because that is about all one can get from careful
> measurements of the paper copies of the usgs topos
> given their limitations
>
> & i think these may actually be the best available data
> in both of the present cases
> notwithstanding all the published ibc marker coords
>
> & then
> having done that
> your best shot may well be simply visiting the geocoords
> indicated by the topos
> with the help of your gps receiver
>
>
>
> however
> since caus is marked by intervisible monuments on the
clearcut
> you ought to be able to improve on your gps reading
> whatever its level of accuracy
> by eyeballing & aligning yourself with the nearest caus
markers
>
> then you will have perhaps a 100 foot length of caus on which
to
> pace back & forth in each case
> & guess the locations of your targeted tripoints
>
>
> for it appears the far greater challenge will be to align with the
> state lines converging upon caus from the south
> since their terminal marker pairs are almost certainly out of
view
> from caus
>
> & even if you could sight to or from them
> you would still have the problem in both cases of projecting the
> final segments of the state lines from these pairs of terminal
> markers
> idmt 3 & 2 on the one hand
> & idwa 176 & 177 on the other
>
> for the projections are only presumptively due north lines
> whereas technically they run from marker to marker
> & should actually run slightly askew
> having been surveyed & marked about a century ago
> when standards of accuracy werent so high as they are now
>
> of course if you could just find these last 2 markers in each
case
> & take gps readings of their actual latitudes & longitudes
> & then project the state lines thru them as far as the caus sight
> line
> & then find these projected points by gps readings on the caus
> sight line
> no one might ever be able to improve on that methodology
>
> but thats a lot of work or play
>
>
> in any case
> best wishes for success
> however you define & do it
> as these are certainly a couple of very challenging points
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Patton [DCP]"
> <dpatton@c...> wrote:
> > The short version of this email:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > - has anyone visited BCIDWA or BCIDMT, and if so,
> > is the visit info online?
> > - if there have been no visits, is there info online
> > that documents the locations of these tripoints?
> > - for the Degree Confluence Project we have rules about
> > what constitutes a successful visit to a confluence,
> > and that is all outlined on our website - is there
> > somewhere that I can refer to online for this group's
> > 'rules' for a successful tripoint visit & documentation?
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > The long version is listed below :-)
> >
> >
> > Two years ago, I asked in this group for any information
> > about the British Columbia/Idaho/Washington(BCIDWA) and
> > British Columbia/Idaho/Montana(BCIDMT) tri-points:
> >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/6843
> >
> > I never did make it to either point - my trip was cut short:
> >
>
http://www.confluence.org/confluence.php?lat=49&lon=-117&visi
> t=2
> >
> > I may be going to the area of these tripoints again fairly soon.
> > Brian Butler indicated in 2002 that he was going to try visiting
> > these tripoints in 2003:
> >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/6846
> > but his website doesn't have any info about them:
> > http://www.bjbsoftware.com/corners/us_canada.html
> > and he hasn't replied to a recent email(June 30th) from me.
> >
> > Does anyone have any additional information?
> >
> > Here's what I have so far. I'm using OziExplorer as
> > my mapping program. Unless otherwise indicated, all
> > coordinates listed below are using NAD27 CONUS.
> >
> > BCIDWA
> >
>
==================================================
> ====================
> > A) Data sources
> > From the University of Washington Geospatial Data Archive
> website:
> > http://wagda.lib.washington.edu/data/drgs.html
> > the Salmo Mountain 1:24,000 DRG(with full map collar):
> >
>
http://duff.geology.washington.edu/data/raster/drg/sandpoint/o48
> 117h1.zip
> >
> > From the Idaho Panhandle National Forests GIS webpage:
> > http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/eco/yourforest/gis/index.html
> > the IPNF National Forest Boundary in Arc/Info export
> format(e00):
> >
http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/eco/yourforest/gis/lands/forestbdry.zip
> > NOTE: the e00 file was imported into OziExplorer as a track,
> > assuming NAD27 CONUS, and UTM Zone 11.
> >
> > International Boundary Commission's NAD27 Boundary
> Segments webpage:
> >
>
http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/ibccoordnad27
> .htm
> > the data for section M. 49th Parallel:
> >
>
http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/coordinates/M
> 49thp.txt
> > NOTE: the NAD27 IBC data was converted to a format that
> could be
> > imported into OziExplorer as a waypoint for each boundary
> monument.
> > NAD27 was assumed to mean NAD27 CONUS.
> >
> > B) Data validation
> > DRG map image is calibrated correctly, as UTM and lat/lon
> > grid lines superimposed by Ozi match up with the map's tick
> > marks. Map image calibration done automatically by
> OziExplorer.
> >
> > The locations of the Canada/USA Border Monuments 194
and
> 195
> > are shown on the DRG, and the waypoints from the IBC data
> are
> > shown on the map as matching the center of the map
symbol.
> >
> > The track showing the IPNF Boundary matches closely with
the
> > Canada/USA and Washington/Idaho borders.
> >
> > C) BCIDWA Tripoint Coordinates
> > Based on setting a waypoint in OziExplorer, centered on the
> > junction of the Canada/USA border with the
Washington/Idaho
> > border, as shown on the DRG:
> > N 48° 59' 57.3628" W 117° 01' 52.7731"
> > From a June 2002 email from Brian Butler:
> > N 48° 59' 57" W 117° 01' 53"
> > From the "corner" trackpoint of the IPNF Boundary data:
> > N 48° 59' 57.4096" W 117° 01' 53.1115"
> >
> > If there is a monument at the Cananda/USA border, then it
> > of course would be definitive as to the tripoint location.
> > The DRG to the south of Salmo Mountain, Helmer Mountain:
> >
>
http://duff.geology.washington.edu/data/raster/drg/sandpoint/o48
> 117g1.zip
> > shows Washington/Idaho Border monuments 165 and 166,
> with 166
> > being to the north of 165. The Salmo Mountain DRG shows
> monument
> > 177, which is 949 meters due south of the border.
> >
> > If there is no Washington/Idaho border monument at the
> Canada/USA
> > border, I'm inclined to consider the first coordinate shown
> above
> > to be the best one at this point, because:
> > - Brian's coordinates are only to the nearest second, and
don't
> > place the waypoint exactly on the border intersection
> > - the IPNF boundary data matches the middle of the
> Cananda/USA
> > border line shown on the DRG, and also matches the
middle
> of the
> > Washington/Idaho border line shown on the DRG south of
> border
> > monument 177. However, there is a data point at
monument
> 177,
> > but north of that, the next two data points(one of which is the
> > "corner" point)line up with the west edge of the
> Washington/Idaho
> > border line, not the center.
> >
>
==================================================
> ====================
> >
> >
> > BCIDMT
> >
>
==================================================
> ====================
> > A) Data sources
> > From the Idaho Department of Lands Geographic
Information
> Systems
> > http://gis.idl.state.id.us/GIShtm/static/GisProgram.htm
> > via the Dynamic Data Server, the Canuck Peak 1:24,000 DRG
> > (with full map collar):
> > http://gis.idl.state.id.us/webGIS/drgzip/h1rc4816.zip
> >
> > International Boundary Commission's NAD27 Boundary
> Segments webpage:
> >
>
http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/ibccoordnad27
> .htm
> > the data for section M. 49th Parallel:
> >
>
http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/coordinates/M
> 49thp.txt
> > NOTE: the NAD27 IBC data was converted to a format that
> could be
> > imported into OziExplorer as a waypoint for each boundary
> monument.
> > NAD27 was assumed to mean NAD27 CONUS.
> >
> > From the Idaho Panhandle National Forests GIS webpage:
> > http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/eco/yourforest/gis/index.html
> > the IPNF National Forest Boundary in Arc/Info export
> format(e00):
> >
http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/eco/yourforest/gis/lands/forestbdry.zip
> > NOTE: the e00 file was imported into OziExplorer as a track,
> > assuming NAD27 CONUS, and UTM Zone 11.
> >
> > B) Data validation
> > The Canuck Peak(h1rc4816) DRG map image, when
> automatically
> > imported into OziExplorer doesn't appear to be calibrated
> > correctly. UTM and lat/lon grid lines superimposed by Ozi
> > match up with the map's tick marks for Longitude, but are
> > "not quite right" for Latitude. Also, the IBC border monument
> > waypoints show up slightly north of the symbols on the map,
> > and the IPNF boundary tracklog shows up as slightly north
> > of where it should be(e.g. in the vicinity of Canuck Peak).
> >
> > I used OziExplorer's 'Move Map Calibration' tool to adjust
> > the map calibration by 6 pixels, and then all the grid lines
> > matched the map ticks.
> >
> > The locations of the Canada/USA Border Monuments 220,
221,
> > and 222 are shown on the DRG, and the waypoints from the
> > IBC data are shown on the map as matching the center of
the
> > map symbol.
> >
> > The track showing the IPNF Boundary matches the NAD27
> 49th
> > parallel, and also the boundary line drawn on the DRG in
> > the lower part of the quadrangle, near Canuck Peak.
> >
> > C) BCIDMT Tripoint Coordinates
> > Based on setting a waypoint in OziExplorer, centered on the
> > junction of the Canada/USA border with the Idaho/Montana
> > border, as shown on the DRG:
> > N 49° 00' 03.2520" W 116° 02' 53.6531"
> > From a June 2002 email from Brian Butler:
> > N 49° 00' 03" W 116° 02' 53"
> >
> > If there is a monument at the Cananda/USA border, then it
> > of course would be definitive as to the tripoint location.
> > The Canuck Mountain DRG shows Idaho/Montana Border
> monuments
> > 2 through 12, with 2 being 1.8956 meters due south of the
> border.
> >
> > If there is no Idaho/Montana border monument at the
> Canada/USA
> > border, I'm inclined to consider the first coordinate shown
> above
> > to be the best one at this point, because:
> > - Brian's coordinates are only to the nearest second, and
don't
> > place the waypoint exactly on the border intersection
> >
>
==================================================
> ====================
> >
> > --
> > Dave Patton
> > Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
> > http://www.confluence.org/
> > My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/