Subject: mdvawv & dcmdvan implode a bit<br/>
Date: Oct 01, 2004 @ 04:04<br/>
Author: aletheiak (&quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
Prev&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next<br/>
<a href="15646.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15648.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1067857945">slightly unsettling news<br/>
<br/>
still no word from kevin <br/>
but in the meantime<br/>
subject to confirmation next week on the paper topo <br/>
a measurement i just made at topozone along the vawv line from <br/>
the depicted center point of the adjacent highway to the depicted <br/>
tripoint position<br/>
appears to push the platted vawv terminal point about 30 feet <br/>
past the tripoint & into maryland <br/>
oops<br/>
<br/>
& since the plat must be much more nearly true than the topo<br/>
at least about vawv as far as the terminal point<br/>
this means the topo must somehow be mistaken about these <br/>
particular details & relationship<br/>
<br/>
& moreover<br/>
it means any automatic acceptance of the authority & accuracy of <br/>
the usgs depiction of all of mdva <br/>
including dcmdvan also <br/>
needs to be at least temporarily suspended<br/>
<br/>
& thus btw<br/>
the mdvawv coords posted at the corner corner <br/>
placing the depicted tripoint south of the platted vawv terminal <br/>
could well have been correctly pulled from the paper topo<br/>
contrary to my earlier incredulity<br/>
<br/>
for clearly it is the topo itself that needs to be disbelieved here<br/>
at least about the low water mark depiction for mdwv & mdva in <br/>
the immediate vicinity of mdvawv<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& i dont know where that leaves us for locating truest available <br/>
mdvawv<br/>
except to count the extant vawv terminal point as one probability<br/>
since at least 2 of the 3 parties do evidently believe in it<br/>
despite the fact that it is high & dry most of the time<br/>
<br/>
& then to count as another probability whatever actual waterline <br/>
intersection of the extended terminal bearing of the vawv survey <br/>
we do find whenever we visit<br/>
hoping that it qualifies as a true low water mark<br/>
since anything below average might now be construed as low<br/>
<br/>
& finally to also count some unknown wet point farther along the <br/>
same terminal alignment as a third probability <br/>
just in case anyone is serious about a truly low water mark<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
in this updated analysis i have fallen back on simply extending <br/>
the present terminal segment of the legal vawv line as needed<br/>
rather than continuing to entertain some possibility of a turn point<br/>
<br/>
for even if it wasnt deliberate or conscious in this case<br/>
understatement of a terminal segment does make a certain <br/>
amount of sense where a third party might take broader issue <br/>
with any minor overstatement<br/>
& we know this particular river boundary is a sensitive one to be <br/>
messing with at all<br/>
<br/>
so maybe everyone likes things perfectly vague here<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& i dont know where that leaves us for locating true dcmdvan <br/>
either <br/>
except to continue to follow the now discredited authority of usgs <br/>
hoping that they couldnt have blown the low water mark as badly <br/>
in the narrow defile at dcmdvan as they so obviously did in the <br/>
much wider breach at mdvawv<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& btw to further close our eyes to the fact that they so clearly also <br/>
misrepresent dcva right there too<br/>
which should be at the high water mark in line with marker wm1 <br/>
rather than on the same uninterrupted lower waterline as mdva<br/>
oops<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
but what better could we hope to do at this point</div>