ahh lowell but it is all great news really
for one thing
i had already surmised as much as you have demonstrated
as you probably realized also from previous discussions
but needed your newly developed data to be sure the usgs was outdated
& wrong
& the continental divide right
which i now am
& for 2 others
tieing chnmso to mxus monument 65 makes perfect sense of a sort & as
perfectly challenging a try pointing destination as could be imagined
for another
your fantastic response sets a new high water mark for quality bp
kibitzing
& i am apparently running out of time
so should stop or at least pause here to check
& post what i can now
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I have good news and bad news.
>
> The good news is that all of my older Mexican maps agree with your
specified
> location for the CHNMSO
> tripoint, and there are roads very near it on both sides of MXUS.
>
> The bad news is that all of my newer Mexican maps show the CHSO
boundary almost
> totally revised, with the tripoint now about 7 km east of that
location, well
> within the mountains and relatively inaccessible. This is
confirmed by the
> "Mapa Digital de México" http://tinyurl.com/6q8kz and
by "Información
> Topográfica Digital" at http://tinyurl.com/ix8y , both from the
Instituto
> Nacional de Estadística, Geografia e Informática.
>
> Approximately the northern 12 km of the revised CHSO boundary
consists of a
> geodesic line running approximately south-southwest from the new
tripoint on
> MSUS. By careful measurement and comparison of the Mexican digital
maps cited
> above with the 1983 USGS maps and (more usefully) the 1998 UGSG
aerial photos at
> TerraServer, I have narrowed down the new tripoint to a certain
mountain ridge
> that just happens to host MXUS Monument 65 at the top of the
Continental Divide!
>
> I have found no text description of the new CHSO boundary. In
fact, the
> majority of Mexican state constitutions say something like "The
territory of the
> state consists of all land properly belonging to it and over which
it exercises
> jurisdiction." Mexico being relatively more centralized than the
typical
> federative union, the task of sorting things out has largely fallen
to the
> federal bureaucracy, which has historically treated such matters
with benign
> neglect. It has not helped that state boundaries often run through
areas
> relatively devoid of persons and economic importance. It is my
impression that
> the drive for fair elections in recent years has forced the
resolution of these
> issues and has finally brought delimitation to state boundaries--at
least
> digitally.
>
> I cannot say with any certainty that the northern terminus of the
northernmost
> geodesic segment of the CHSO boundary is intended to be MXUS
Monument 65 on the
> Continental Divide. However, that is my tentative guess, and I
consider it a
> reasonable assumption. What better reason would there be for the
line to land
> on exactly that ridge?
>
> If you're still interested in access, I will recommend the aerial
photo at
> http://tinyurl.com/54dh7 . It shows a dirt road (which might or
might not be
> public) across the top in the USA and Mexico highway 2 snaking
across the
> bottom. The latter is a paved federal highway, built since the
1983 topos. It
> lies within a mile of the MXUS boundary. You'll have to switch
back and forth
> between the aerials and the topos (using the tabs at the upper
right) and zoom
> in and out (using the scale at the upper left of the image) to
explore the area.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:21 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] chnmso
>
>
> >
> >
> > surprisingly
> > both the 24k & 100k scale usgs topos at topozone
> > both dated 1983
> > show a mxus2chnmso tristate point about 12 miles east of aznmso
> > between features or populated places named los lamentos on the
sonora
> > side & el valle on the chihuahua side
> >
> > so does anyone have any reason to believe that this is an accurate
> > depiction of the tripoint location
> > based on authoritative information
> >
> > or any better reason to believe in a different location
> >
> > or does anyone know where the authoritative & current data for
this
> > point can be found