worth a good deal as probable source of the mysterious word
m e a n
in the legal description
& for suggesting virginia state government as the metasource
& thus worth a good deal again if virginia will tell us where she
picked it up from & what she means by it
for that much could give at least a unilateral sanction & definition
of low water mark in re mdva
if not actually delivering a similar blessing on the mdwv
convergent at the same time
to which we however would still need to materialize & add the
nonexistent vawv convergent
for it still needs to miraculously get down from the veggie line
several hundred feet
& in an unknown direction too
hopefully by phone later today
but i really cant imagine a correction or revision happening at
this point
just because some jokers notice a little loophole or 3
for of the missing tripointing stitch
the county & state of loudon & virginia are evidently unaware
as is the county of jefferson in wv too
if not wv herself also
not to mention any consent or prescription from maryland about
any of this mean stuff
for she is probably even more blissfully unaware of it all from the
far side of the river yet too
& the fact that the low water mark hasnt been surveyed is no
great surprise
but still worth a good deal yet again
for confirming that we are indeed going where none have gone
before
with regard to not just 1 but all 3 convergents here
for it now appears this tripoint position is still entirely unknown in
all dimensions
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> For what it's worth, a metadata document dated February 10,
2000, from the
> Virginia Office of Mapping and Geographic Information is
quoted on the Loudoun
> County web site at
>
http://inetdocs.loudoun.gov/omagi/docs/metadata_/county/county
.txt
> as follows:
>
> Loudoun's boundary with Maryland is the
> mean low water mark of the Potomac River
> on the Virginia side; it has not been surveyed.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:32 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries
continued
>
>
> an unexpected bonus document entitled
> vawv boundary survey project report
> was also enclosed in the same email
>
> its introduction indicates
> the surveyor was contracted by loudon & jefferson counties to
> establish the top of the blue ridge watershed from the tripoint
> with clarke county va to the tripoint with washington county md
>
> which latter point it then restates parenthetically as
> the mean low water mark of the potomac river on the virginia
> side
>
>
> so it could be significant that the word
> m e a n
> was added
>
>
> but that would still not get us anywhere near the veggie line
>
>
>
> however
> unless it is just an idle & meaningless word someone added
> it might help us to establish which of several possible
definitions
> of the low water mark might have been meant
> first by the 1877 arbitrators & later the 1910 supremes
> if they actually said or meant it that way
> & then as recited by the surveyors or whoever hired them in
1997
> assuming they were parroting something real in some original
> text somewhere
>
> i mean it might help us if the task of determining the low water
> mark falls to us
> as i am beginning to think it may well do
> since nobody else seems to care very much
>
> but
> perhaps equally or more significantly
> there is nothing in the accounts of these decisions given by
> mathews & nelson nor in bus&ss that indicates the word
mean
> was ever used
> whether in the adjudications or in any connection with these
> boundaries at any time or place
>
> & as for what the specifically mean low water mark means
here
> i dont know if it can have any meaning for rivers other than
> perhaps the average annual low water mark
> tho in maritime use it can refer to an averaging of a full tidal
cycle
> of 19 consecutive years of low water marks
>
> but anyway i am racing ahead as well as possibly off on a
> tangent here
>
> so lets first see what the phonecall turns up tomorrow
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > staggering news
> >
> > the vawv legal description
> > which has just arrived by email
> > & is nothing but a metes & bounds description of the survey
> > indicates unquestionably
> > that the point we already know as the vawv terminal point
> > & which you may recall was shown in the plat on the veggie
> line
> > is situated 79point56 feet from the terminal marker we also
> > already know
> > tho my own great circle computation had it at 79point52 feet
> > but no matter
> >
> > & moreover it flatly indicates that this point is at the
> > low water mark
> > of the potomac river
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > & is common to the counties & states of
> > loudon va & jefferson wv & washington md
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > i kid you not
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > in other words
> > they all believe the veggie line & the low water line are the
> same
> > thing
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > & this is all perfectly legal yet
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > so my suspicion that they might not have known what they
> were
> > doing is beginning to look justified
> >
> >
> > & the error was probably never noticed because the lands
> > involved are probably in the public domain & probably dont
> > appear on the tax rolls of any county
> >
> >
> > needless to say
> > i will be back on the horn with kevin in the morning
> >
> > but in the meantime
> > what does anyone else make of this
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > just got off the phone with kevin again
> > >
> > > & the vawv legal description is already on its way to cream
> hill
> > >
> > > & he too is now actively pondering the question of exactly
> how
> > vawv
> > > gets down to the low water mark from the terminal point of
> his
> > survey
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > McManus"
> > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > Please see my two insertions below.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv
retries
> > > > continued
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > yes
> > > > > > kevins my man
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & tho i agree his excellent report does not directly
> > address
> > > > the
> > > > > > question of the tripoint
> > > > > > it certainly provides a new clue that could well lead to
> the
> > > > tripoint
> > > > > > for it reveals the existence of a legal description of the
> > > > boundary
> > > > > > previously unsuspected by me
> > > > > > in addition to the plat & marker description reports
> > already
> > > in
> > > > my
> > > > > > possession
> > > > > >
> > > > > > aha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & this already sounds like
> > > > > > practically if not exactly
> > > > > > the extra tidbit you suggested i might find on file in the
> > > county
> > > > > > courthouses alongside the survey
> > > > > > aha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so that already looks like some pretty sharp shooting
> with
> > > > both
> > > > > > barrels by you
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm glad to be of help!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > & you can bet i will be on the phone with kevin in the
> > morning
> > > > > > about this missing & possibly critical document
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & yes possibly just another red herring too
> > > > > > i concede
> > > > > > but due diligence demands i track it down in any case
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & another footnote to the dcmdvan try too
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it also just occurred to me
> > > > > > an additional essential bit of data i need to remember
> to
> > pull
> > > > off
> > > > > > the paper topo is the compass bearing of the
> dcmd&arfa
> > line
> > > > > > yikes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The bearing was supposed to be north 45 degrees
east.
> > > > BUS&SS says:
> > > > >
> > > > > The lines do not bear exactly 45° from the
> > > > > meridian, but the greatest variation is only 1¾'.
> > > >
> > > > right but we need to know the actual bearing along this
> > segment
> > > > of the border
> > > > which we can pull from the paper topo as well as
anywhere
> > > >
> > > > perhaps as much as millimeters of difference are at
stake
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The footnote on that says:
> > > > >
> > > > > For data regarding surveys and boundary
> > > > > marks see Baker, Marcus, Nat. Geog. Mag.,
> > > > > vol. 6, pp. 149-165, 1894."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > obviously
> > > > > > since we cant count on marker wm1 to give us the
> angle
> > of
> > > > > > approach to dcmdvan but only to indicate a point on
the
> > > > > > dcmd&arfa line some 49 or so feet away from it
> > > > > > aha
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so things keep cooking nicely on both fronts
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links