hmm
are you sure of the right direction
had you not said it this way
i would have guessed this shot was just the opposite alignment
which is to say
f r o m
133
& t o w a r d
134 & 135 & 136
or in other words facing the river rather than away from the river
is this not right
or maybe there is some confusion about the numbering too
& i dont think 134 could be there by the people
because
we do know from the geocoordinates that marker 134 is much
closer to 133 than to 135
indeed more than 3 times closer
cribbing from peter in message 14663
it is about 54 meters from 135 to 134
& i can compute from this
fully 17 meters from 134 to 133
so look for 134 almost a quarter of the way down from 133 to 135
as well as very slighly off line
& once you have either found 134 or sighted 136 across the river
just forget about 133 for purposes of truest possible sighting
since its coords show it is slightly askew of the correct terminal
alignment
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper Nielsen"
<jesniel@i...> wrote:
> See attached alignment from 135 to 133 (by the signs at the
hill). Could 134 be there by the people?
>
> Jesper
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: aletheiak
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:11 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Re; Map sites (ATCHFLN)
>
>
> yes yes yes
> it is common practice to mark river tripoints this way
>
> & the geocoordinate data brought by peter vouch that
precisely
> this is the case here
> or at least was once the case here
>
> if you see marker 136 then that is all you will need to align
with
> the already found 135
>
> alternatively if you find 134 that would be practically enough
too
> as there is only the slightest difference in alignment among
the 3
>
> if you find neither of these
> then the top line on 135 alone would still be substantially
correct
> tho not as good
>
> & last & least
> the data dont support 133 except as a very general check
>
> however
> whether mats is right or not
> all the indications are that you were substantially on line the
first
> time
>
> what we are doing now is just for corrobation & fine tuning
>
> & only if you are wanting to improve the existing class d visit to
a
> class b
> would any of these considerations become very interesting
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper Nielsen"
> <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > Would they place a ATFL marker in CH?
> >
> > Doubt it.
> >
> > But we can check.
> >
> > Jesper
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ernst Stavro Blofeld
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Re; Map sites (ATCHFLN)
> >
> >
> > --- Jesper Nielsen <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > > What happened to 136?
> > >
> >
> > I think I can see it.
> >
> > See red circle on attached picture from Peter.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.