the united nations itself calls the entire 18 acres an international
zone
& describes it as a condo belonging to all 191 of its members
http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/untour/subunh.htm
so it could yet prove to be a true territorial entity rather than just a
merely diplomatic enclave
with real stamps & real security forces
just like the vatican & taiwan
in case thats all that matters
for we know it doesnt have to be a member of the united nations
in order to be considered a real country with a real territory
so perhaps more data are needed to fully answer this question
& just to continue answering the original but neglected question
that is asked by the title tho not continued directly in the text
the other land in the usa that isnt in a state of course includes
the district of columbia
plus the 5 inhabited & 9 uninhabited & 3 disputed insular
territories
plus all the federal maritime territory adjoining both all the above
except dc & all the regular coastal states
& to answer the possibly implicit question behind the questions
only the district of columbia & the federal seas produce top level
domestic tripoints
specifically
at all the 22 places where they abut the various commonwealth
& state lines
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I do not know the precise status of the property as to land
ownership or to the
> UN's tenure upon it, but its political status is somewhat
analogous to that of a
> foreign embassy.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "raedwulf16" <raedwulf16@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 1:26 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that
isn't in a State?
>
>
> > What exactly is the political status of the UN.Has the land
alloted
> > it in NYC been "surrendered" to the UN as an entity separate
from
> > the USA..or is the space merely--- being rented ???? In
> > BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > BUS&SS says, of the "Treaty with Great Britain, 1925":
> > >
> > > "Article II of the treaty made the lines between monuments
> > established under the
> > > treaty of 1908 on the 49th parallel east of the Rocky
Mountains
> > straight lines,
> > > not following the curve of the parallel. The United States
gained
> > between 30
> > > and 35 acres of land by this change."
> > >
> > > "Straight lines" are, by purest definition, arcs of the great
> > circle. The idea
> > > here is line-of-sight between intervisible monuments, and
those
> > are indeed great
> > > circle arcs.
> > >
> > > The segment west of the Rocky Mountains had been
furnished with
> > intervisible
> > > monuments for the first time as of 1907, and the 1908
treaty
> > said "The line so
> > > defined and laid down shall be taken and deemed to be
the
> > international
> > > boundary."
> > >
> > > Another quote from BUS&SS:
> > >
> > > "Boundary monuments along the 49th parallel may vary in
latitude
> > by as much as a
> > > second or more, because many of them were astronomic
stations. It
> > was not
> > > thought practical to move these to the true parallel, and the
> > boundary is
> > > defined as the line joining successive stations."
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:31 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in
USA that
> > isn't in a
> > > State?
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >