Are you certain it's extraterritorial (i.e., is a border marker under
German extraterritorial administration) or just a remnant now owned by
the Swiss, that they left in place for practical purposes from the
time when a farm on the south side of the river (and all of a short
section of the Rhein) belonged to Büsingen? It's easy for the Germans
to call it 1A on their maps as long as it's there, even though the
Swiss maybe could remove it if they wanted to.

Len Nadybal
DC

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Stavro Blofeld
<blofeld_es@y...> wrote:

>
> The recent discussion of a border marker on the
> CH-bank at ATCHLIN made me take a second look at the
> situation at Buesingen, which is similar in that the
> southern border of the exclave coincides with the
> thalweg of, as it were, the same river as at ATCHLIN.
>
> On the attachment you will notice that marker number 2
> of the Buesingen border is on the north bank of the
> river Rhine. Actually it sits in the middle of the
> lawn of a private garden, a fact that could no doubt
> spawn another interesting discussion here on the
> subject of privately "owned" border segments... :)
>
> Note marker 1A on the south bank of the river. This is
> clearly intended to establish the border's trajectory
> from the shore to the thalweg.
>
> However, the thalweg principle is disputable here,
> since there is a marker 1 more or less in the middle
> of the river. Allegedly, this is a large block of rock
> with an inscription on the flatish top face, which is
> submerged a meter or so at low water table. Here is
> food for another discussion on submerged or
> underground bordermarkers, I suppose. (I know of at
> least one other marker that is completely under the
> surface of the earth, and a handful or so whose upper
> face aligns with the ground.)
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail