--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Are there not also a railway and two water pipelines on the
Singapore-Johore
> Causeway, in addition to the roadway and any footpath?
what a fantastic oratorical flourish upon my mere etcetera
hahahahaha
& why do i keep getting the feeling you think bp is a debating society
hahahaha
but now that we do appear to agree at least in our incredulity
do i have to actually line up on the same side with you
hahahaha
seriously tho
i cant imagine that any of this is causing the parties or anybody
else any real difficulty in knowing with nearly perfect exactitude
where the agreed even if still somewhat sketchy maritime border
crosses under the prior &or subsequent superstructures
that part of the puzzle cant have been very difficult to solve
for all practical purposes
rather if there really is any outstanding question
then it is apparently just the question of whether they actually do
want to agree upon & maintain the border in the same vertical plane
on the superstructures as in the waters beneath them
& perhaps the apparent absence of any markers on the superstructures
if indeed they are absent rather than simply unknown to us
yikes
may possibly indicate that this question remains unresolved
but it is hard to imagine how international roadways like these could
be operated without agreed & known borders
& i frankly doubt that will prove to be the case
if closer examinations & more thorough investigations are undertaken
locally
end inserts
> Does the specificity of the MYSG boundary (except for on the
causeway) imply
> that there is a definite boundary on the high-level Second Link
Bridge opened in
> 1998 at the western end of Singapore Island? Is the boundary
marked of the
> bridge by signs, flags, etc?
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:23 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: border crossings and rules of road
>
>
> >
> >
> > yikes
> > 11 meters seems scarcely enough clearance for the minimum
necessary 2
> > lanes of car traffic & pedestrian walkway etc
> > if there were only a single span
> >
> > but i believe there is actually a double elevated roadway there
> >
> > so i have to wonder
> > are you sure these points are indeed both clear of the entire
> > causeway construction
> >
> > & if so
> > but even if not
> > then dont they effectively establish the position for any dry
> > boundary sector that should happen to arise upon or between or
above
> > them anyway
> > in the absence of any other agreement
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Pratt"
<m.a.pratt@d...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Malaysia and Singapore signed a territorial sea boundary
agreement
> > > in 1995 which provided geographical coordinates for a boundary
> > > originally established in 1927 as "an imaginary line following
the
> > > centre of the deep-water channel in Johore Strait". The 1995
> > > agreement defines a boundary east and west of the causeway but
> > > otherwise makes no mention of the causeway itself - which
suggests
> > > to me that the two governments treat the boundary on the
causeway
> > as
> > > a (still to be defined?) land boundary. The nearest points on
the
> > > territorial sea boundary to the causeway are at: 01d 27' 10.0"N,
> > > 103d 46' 16.0"E to the east of the causeway; and 01d 27' 09.8"N,
> > > 103d 46' 15.7"E to the west of the causeway (coordinates refer
to
> > > the Revised Kertau Datum) - which, according to my rough
> > > calculations, leaves a gap of approximately 11 metres.
> > >
> > > m a r t i n