I think you just said the same as what I said when I said
"When I reached the
appropriate spot on the road I searched around for any kind of marker some
distance either side of the road but was unable to locate one. What I did locate
was all on the road itself. From these conflicting pieces of evidence it is is
not possible, therefore, to determine accurately exactly where the tripoint is
located."
Maybe someone else will have better luck, if indeed there
is another physical marker in existence that I could not
find.
understood but official map evidence generally trumps
all
other data
unless it is proved wrong by onsite investigation
or by
better official data
such as the legal text etc
it is clear you have
a tripoint indicator of some sort
there
just as peter & jim
supposed in the part of the
message that has been truncated below
for i
dont think that was ever very seriously in
question
nor are indirect
& or ceremonial markers terribly rare
for that matter
but it
isnt at all clear that you have
t h e
official
direct
onsite
tripoint
mojon
for that to be clear
or to even become a
reasonable inference or plausible
guess
the tripoint position precisely
indicated on the best
available maps still needs to be checked &
positively
eliminated
--- Hugh Wallis <hugh@...>
wrote:
> >>the fact that the railway is abandoned doesnt
at
> all
> necessarily mean that the legal position of the
>
tripoint adjacent to the railway & shown on the best
> available
& current official maps has also been
> abandoned with
it<<
>
> That was just a casual comment for
informational
> purposes - it was not
> intended that any
inference about the tripoint
> should be drawn from it
>
> Cheers
>
> Hugh
>
>
> _____
>
> From:
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>
[mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of aletheia
kallos
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:46 PM
> To:
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] RE:
[borderpoint] Re:
> Spanish provincial
> tripoint marker... or
not
>
>
> bravissimos & vivas from me too hugh
>
> & i agree you must have arcala the second one right
> &
that jimmy is confused
> but i also agree with him about arcllo the
first one
>
> because
> the fact that the railway is
abandoned doesnt at all
> necessarily mean that the legal position of
the
> tripoint adjacent to the railway & shown on the best
>
available & current official maps has also been
> abandoned with
it
>
> --- Hugh Wallis <hugh@...>
wrote:
>
> > The mojon I photoed is the same one that
is
> pictured
> > at
> >
>
http://www.albaiges.com/historia/historiatresreyes.htm
>
> so I don't quite
> > understand the comment about the "third"
(unless
> you
> > are referring to the
> > second one
on my web page - but that is at a
> > different tripoint).
>
>
> > I searched around on both sides of the road
for
> > other ones but found
> > nothing. The railway is
abandoned by the way.
> >
> > I am in Madrid now so
no chance of getting back
> > there (its about 300km away)
>
>
> > Cheers
> >
> > Hugh
>
>
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> >
[mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of jim van
dura
> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 8:42 PM
> > To:
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com;
> >
borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc:
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] RE:
[borderpoint] Re:
> > Spanish provincial
> > tripoint
marker... or not
> >
> >
> > Beautifully done,
Hugh! We thought there might be
> > two
> > mojones, and
here you have brought us a third!
> Nice
> > to
> >
see they have no sense of direction too! But did
> you
> > not
try to reach the real mojon also, as shown on
> > Peter's officially
authoritative treasure map???
> Or
> > are you still in close
enough range to double back
> > for
> > this coup de
grace?
> > Jimmy
> >
> > --- Hugh Wallis
<hugh@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello
Peter and Jimmy
> > >
> > > I have visited this
tripoint and you can find
> the
> > > results of my
visit
> > > documented at http://tinyurl.com/baglc
> >
>
> > > I have copied this to boundarypoint since I
have
> > now
> > > been reliably informed
> >
> that is the correct place to discuss tripointing
> > and
>
> > I don't want to step on
> > > people's toes, being new
and all :)
> > >
> > > Cheers
> >
>
> > > Hugh
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> >
> From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
> > >
[mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com] On
> > > Behalf Of
jimvandura
> > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 11:26 PM
>
> > To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject:
[borderpoint] Re: Spanish provincial
> > > tripoint marker... or
not
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> > > Smaardijk"
<smaardijk@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On the
website
> > >
> >
>
http://www.albaiges.com/historia/historiatresreyes.htm
>
> >
> > > > there is a picture of the tripoint of
the
> > Spanish
> > > regions Navarre, La
> >
> > Rioja, and Aragon (provinces Navarre, La
> Rioja,
> >
> Zaragoza). It should
> > > > be at the side of the road
(the N113 according
> > to
> > > my Michelin road
> > > > map), and that road can be seen in the
>
pictures.
> > > Convincing so far.
> > > >
>
> > > But on the map sites of Navarre (
> > > http://sitna.tracasa.es/ ) and La
>
> > > Rioja (direct access to relevant map at
> > >
>
> > >
> >
>
http://www.larioja.org/sig/imagenes/5000/25tp2927.gif
>
> > ) the "mojón de
> > > > los tres reyes" is not at
this roadside, but
> at
> > > the other side of the
>
> > > railway, to the northwest of the location at
>
the
> > > road.
> > > >
> > > >
Maybe there are two markers: the "correct"
> one,
> > > and
the one on the
> > > > roadside. The one in the pictures very
much
> > > resembles other such
> > > > roadside
markers in Spain, which I suspect
> mark
> > > the border of
the
> > > > provincial road network authorities more
>
> > accurately than that they
> > > > mark the
provincial territories themselves.
> > > >
> > >
> Does somebody have any thoughts on this?
> > > >
>
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > Hi! Jimmy Van Dura,
class of '75, at your
> service,
> > > having just joined
both
> > > your fascinating
> > > point lists. And I
was a little confused how
> this
> > > subject qualified as
an
> > > international
> > > boundary topic rather
than a tripoint topic. But
> I
> > > think you got it
exactly
> > > right in the end,
> > > Peter, and that
the pictures are not really "of
> > the
> > > tripoint,"
as they were
> > > said to be.
> >
> It is amazing how much false
information
> > there
> > > is on the web, but
also
>
=== message truncated
===
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around
http://mail.yahoo.com