Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a tripointing puzzle joke<br/>
Date: Nov 22, 2005 @ 05:29<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="18841.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18849.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic18823.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="18841.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="18843.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-489367991">I think that 400 feet is fairly accurate for the house on the west side of the <br/>
road near the red dot in the road produced by TerraServer from the Rentons&#39; <br/>
street address.  However, it is possible that the Renton home is a newer one not <br/>
on the map, across the road on the east, and much closer to the mapped line.<br/>
<br/>
Didn&#39;t the article say that the surveyor had recovered some old forgotten stones <br/>
or markers?  Perhaps the maps show a long geodesic where the actual originally <br/>
surveyed line (now recovered) is a somewhat imperfect one hopping from stone to <br/>
stone.  That could account for a few houses one way and a few the other without <br/>
any wholesale transplant of the entire line and its two termini.  Is this what <br/>
you meant by your suggestion that the single-line theory might bite the dust <br/>
first of all?<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
From: &quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:aletheiak@...">aletheiak@...</a>&gt;<br/>
To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:45 PM<br/>
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: a tripointing puzzle joke<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
&gt; well lowell i never did phone in today & am off to sleep on it again now<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so i guess it must be a longer than usual moment of truth in trypointing<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; i did compare the official richland map with the topo again tho<br/>
&gt; & noticed the former southeast corner of richland has somehow gotten nibbled <br/>
&gt; off too<br/>
&gt; or else never existed as shown on the topo<br/>
&gt; oops<br/>
&gt; so presumably the maximum possible southeasting of any supposedly singular new<br/>
&gt; geodesic segment should actually be revised back north & west a bit<br/>
&gt; to only about the cursor cross position here<br/>
&gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://topozone.com/map.asp?">http://topozone.com/map.asp?</a><br/>
&gt; z=17&n=4457804&e=686553&s=100&size=l&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; which means<br/>
&gt; such a new segment running thru your discovered point actually couldnt <br/>
&gt; displace adcori<br/>
&gt; by more than a few hundred feet<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; which in turn seems a comfortable margin for so few as 7 houses to have <br/>
&gt; changed sides<br/>
&gt; some of them likely not even shown on the topo<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but your earlier guess of so much as a 400 foot displacement from the old line <br/>
&gt; at your<br/>
&gt; found point remains a little disconcerting<br/>
&gt; because it means a new adcori at the end of a single geodesic running thru <br/>
&gt; your point<br/>
&gt; would have to fall more than 400 feet west of the old adri<br/>
&gt; & that would mean many more than 7 houses would change sides<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so maybe the single line thesis is what must bite the dust here first of all<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; or else<br/>
&gt; i wonder if you could possibly be overestimating at 400 feet offline for that <br/>
&gt; street address<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so i wonder if you can think of any reason to shorten up on this guess<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; or would that only be in my dreams<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; but in any case<br/>
&gt; multidimensionally sweet ones to one & all </span></blockquote></div>