Oh, Mike, I wasn't debating you! As you admit, I was merely expounding on your
"etcetera" and thereby echoing and reinforcing your incredulity that everything
on the earthen-fill causeway could be squeezed between two coordinates eleven
meters (36 feet) apart.
Malaysia apparently either believed or pretended that there was a boundary on
the causeway in 2003 when it proposed the unilateral replacement its portion of
the crossing with a bizarre elevated S-shaped "crooked half-bridge" three times
as long! See
http://www.malaysia.net/dap/lks2507.htm .
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:35 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: border crossings and rules of road
>
>
> --- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>