caus runs along the straight sight lines from one caus marker to
the next caus marker
& these lines always appear as straight lines on flat maps
but tho they are supposedly & for all practical purposes straight
lines
they are actually the arcs of great circles
however
this doesnt necessarily mean the bcidwa tripoint necessarily
falls north of the latitude of both of its flanking caus markers
namely numbers 195 & 194
it only means bcidwa necessarily falls north of the latitude of
whichever of the flanking markers is the more southerly one
& that bcidwa may or may not fall north of the latitude of the other
one
for it all depends on the actual exact latitudes of the 2 markers
as well as on the distance between them
& these 3 factors are of course highly variable
in the present case
since the actual latitudes are
for marker 195 nlat48d59m57s42 &
for marker 194 nlat48d59m56s85
expressed in nad27 only because the official nad83 values are
for some reason one digit less exact
bcidwa will indeed have a higher latitude than marker 194 but
will not in fact have a higher latitude than marker 195
only if 2 markers are on exactly the same latitude would every
point on their sight line necessarily fall at a higher latitude than
both of them
& only if the flat map happened to be the kind that distorts all
latitudes into straight lines
& also happened to be an extremely large scale
would the individual caus sight lines be depicted in arcs
but in fact i dont believe we have ever seen nor are very likely to
ever see such a map
what with the great circle arc bulging only a fraction of an inch per
mile
even if the flat map you are envisioning were full scale
one still wouldnt be able to discern visually which of the 2 lines
between the markers was the straight one & which was the
curved one
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> 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@m...> 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@y...>
> > 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/