Subject: Re: high points
Date: Jan 21, 2005 @ 04:19
Author: L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


But that view couldn't be held consistently. For instance, lets
assume for a moment that the highest point in France was on
Guadeloupe. That would only apply so long as France was in one of the
periods when Guadeloupe was a "departement". It isn't always a
departement, and is classified as something akin to an overseas
territory from time to time. Same with St. Pierre et Miquelon - the
French change their legal views as to what it is in relation to
Metropolitan France. So your premise holds only so long as the
official view is that places like St. Pierre aren't de jure
incorporated into Metropolitan France and wouldn't hold if the place
were at the time considered more like a colony.

LN


--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Brendan Whyte <bwhyte@u...> wrote:
>
> > From: "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
> >Subject: RE: Boundaries and Highpoints
> >
> >I would suggest they would not be a part of the parent state. It seems
> >absurd to say the highest point in Germany is in Africa.
>
>
> But Australia's is on a tiny island in the Southern Ocean...
>
> It is a little known fact that the highest point on Australian
Territory is
> actually Mawson's Peak. Located on Heard Island, Mawson's Peak is 2745
> metres high, and forms the summit of an active volcano called Big Ben.
> Heard Island is well south of the Australian continent (73°30' East,
53°05'
> South), approaching the coast of Antarctica in the Southern Ocean.
There
> are higher elevations and mountains in the Australian Antarctic
Territory.
> http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/landforms/highmtns.htm#extter
>
>
>
> Dr Brendan Whyte
> Assistant Map Curator
> ERC Library
> University of Melbourne
> Vic 3010
> AUSTRALIA
> bwhyte@u...