Subject: Re: Re; Map sites (ATCHFLN)<br/>
Date: Jul 16, 2004 @ 17:20<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="14663.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="14676.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic14654.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="14663.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="14665.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1904947284">--- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; <br/>
&lt;smaardijk@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@y...&gt; <br/>
&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; even better <br/>
&gt; &gt; thanx<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; & which also raises the question for checking<br/>
&gt; &gt; whatever the actual marker numbers prove to be<br/>
&gt; &gt; is the tripoint correctly positioned on the thalweg by the 2 <br/>
&gt; &gt; riverbank markers alone<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; or by sighting thru the last 2 markers directly situated on the <br/>
&gt; atli <br/>
&gt; &gt; line alone<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; or are all 3 of these markers in practically perfect alignment <br/>
&gt; anyway<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; The border is defined to be &quot;geradlinig&quot; (in a straight line) from <br/>
&gt; marker 134 to 135 (54 metres), and &quot;geradlinig&quot; from 135 to 136 <br/>
 </span></blockquote>(160 <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; metres). I presume that the tripoint is where the thalweg crosses <br/>
&gt; this last line.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Peter S.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>thanx again<br/>
& i also determined <br/>
by comparing & crunching the geocoords you just provided<br/>
that markers 136 & 135 & 134 are indeed in very substantial <br/>
alignment with one another<br/>
up to the 4th decimal place of accuracy anyway<br/>
& that marker 133 is close but not nearly so close as the others<br/>
agreeing with them only up to the 2nd decimal place<br/>
<br/>
so there is no question that 136 & 135 are definitive<br/>
whether 134 is found or not<br/>
<br/>
a difficulty may arise however in that the previous try evidently <br/>
produced photos only of markers 135 & 133<br/>
<br/>
markers 134 & 136 may have been seen but were never reported<br/>
<br/>
clearly one or the other if not both of these must be found & used <br/>
with marker 135<br/>
rather than marker 133<br/>
as some of the photos indicate may have been done earlier</div>