but is the boundary defined as straight line great
circle arcs or straight lines on flat maps. great
circle arcs mean the tripoint would be north of the
latitude of the 2 CA-US monuments. (and on a flat map
the border should arc up between each CA-US monument.)
--- "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
> I agree that no non-state land was created when the
> CAUS boundary was moved from
> the theoretical 49th parallel to straight line
> segments between intervisible
> monuments. If the northern boundary of Idaho, for
> instance, had been specified
> as the parallel, then there might be a problem, but
> Idaho's northern boundary
> was specified upon its 1890 admission to the Union
> as "the boundary line between
> the United States and the British Possessions."
> Thus, if CAUS moves, so does
> the state boundary.
>
> The same is true along MXUS when the Rio Grande and
> the Colorado River accrete
> and avulse. If the US grows, so do the affected
> states.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:10 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land
> in USA that isn't in a State?
>
>
> > very interesting
> >
> > i dont think any stateless land is actually
> created by it tho
> >
> > rather i believe idwa must continue effectively
> due north the extra
> > half inch or so beyond the 1909 terminal marker
> vertex
> > until it reaches the caus sight line at true
> bcidwa
> >
> > this point is reached probably while still on the
> marker disk
> > but just north of its center point
> > if i understand you correctly
> >
> > & if that is right
> > then you have made & reported here the first
> monumental class
> > b visit in history
> >
> > which is a curious contradiction in terms
> > since class b was invented for unmarked points
> >
> > but i believe your novel findings have
> demonstrated that true
> > bcidwa is indeed an unmarked point upon the idwa
> terminal
> > marker
> >
> > & have done so with almost acupunctural precision
> to boot
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Patton
> [DCP]"
> > <dpatton@c...> wrote:
> > > This is a theoretical question, just out of
> curiosity,
> > > but may not be hypothetical.
> > >
> > > By treaty, the Cananda/USA border along the 49th
> parallel
> > > is defined by straight lines between border
> monuments.
> > >
> > > It's my understanding that boundaries between US
> states,
> > > such as between Wahington and Idaho, are defined
> by
> > > the locations of monuments along those borders.
> > >
> > > Apparently, the monument that defines the
> intersection
> > > of the Washington/Idaho border with the
> Canada/USA border
> > > was incorrectly placed by the USGS in 1909,
> because they
> > > placed in on the parallel, which is a line with
> a slight
> > > southward curve, rather than placing it on the
> straight
> > > line between the two adjacent Canada/USA border
> > monuments.
> > >
> > > The difference is apparently very small -
> perhaps on the
> > > order of 1/2 an inch, but, at least
> theoretically, doesn't
> > > this create a small piece of land that is south
> of the
> > > Canada/USA border, and therefore is in the USA,
> but which
> > > is located north of both Washinton and Idaho?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave Patton
> > > Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
> > > http://www.confluence.org/
> > > My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/