in morning light a slight retrenchment is warranted
of my expectation expressed here below last night
of nailing nyonqc possibly even down to the correct square inch
for tho it is true that we do have part of the data in the degminsec plus 3 decimal places
that are needed to accomplish this
namely the official geocoords of caus turnpoint 1 to the northwest of nyonqc
nevertheless we dont yet have anything near such precision
nor can we necessarily expect it
for either of the other 2 essential ingredients
namely
the southwestern end of this geodetic caus segment
which is presumably situated at the true ellicott rock position
&
the as yet totally unknown true onqc convergent
& it may well be that the reason the coords for the theoretically corrected ellicott rock
position
aka the point of origin aka terminus aka j&k sectoral transition point
are given only in degminsec plus 1 decimal place
is that this rock has been eluding the ibs just as much as it has eluded me
& indeed this is another question for the commish to clarify
because if the ibc does indeed have a good fix on this rock & the turnpoint it marks
then we can expect they will have it down far more accurately than the published coords
& indeed most probably just like the published coords of all the other rocks in sector j
which are given in at least degminsec plus 2 decimal places
if not degminsec plus 3 or even 5
as is the case with at least a few of the rocks in this series
so the ellicott rock may or may not yet prove to be a limiting factor in relation to the
accuracy of the guess
&
based on the best available official data
the geodetic segment of caus which onqc joins at nyonqc may yet prove to be an inch wide
ribbon connecting a pair of inch wide end points
as i supposed last night
or it may yet prove to be either a bit wider or narrower than an inch at the trifinial point
depending on the ultimate elusiveness or forthcomingness of this possibly still lost ellicott
rock
but thats the easy part
the more imponderable ingredient at this point
which is that of the true course of onqc
hasnt yet been refined to anything better than integral degminsec
if indeed even that well
since it is still based entirely on a merely surmised position that has so far been simply
measured off on a topo & computed as well as possible
& as a result of all the above factors
the present state of the try involves a ribbon of caus certainly less than a yard wide
but still something on the order of perhaps 100 feet in length
with hopes but not yet any guarantees of further refinement
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
> ok i have just found the apparent sources of the nad83
> marker & turnpoint coords in
> http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/coordinates/SECT-J-83.txt
> &
> http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/coordinates/SECT-K-83.txt
> which are simply these original & generally finer
> nad27 versions of the same positions
> http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/coordinates/J45thp.txt
> &
> http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/coordinates/KStLaw.txt
> respectively
>
> also found that tho both nad versions of the marker
> coords in sector j are described as official
> nevertheless only the nad27 version of these is
> sometimes given in as many as 5 decimal places
> & so is presumably more official & up to date than the
> nad83 version
> &
> that the nad83 turnpoint coords in sector k are
> described only as calculated by transformation
> software & are given only in tenths of seconds
> whereas the nad27 version of these is given in
> thousandths of seconds
> & thus is also presumably more official & up to date
> than its nad83 version
>
>
> which means i have been working with needlessly coarse
> as well as needlessly derivative data
> whooops
> & am therefore most decidedly converting to the more
> original & finer nad27 versions
> herewith & henceforth
> & am thus also hugely increasing my expectation now of
> eventually nailing nyonqc possibly even to within the
> correct square inch
> rather than merely to the correct 10 foot square as
> previously
>
>
> & if you are with me in making this changeover
> another immediate bonus we get for doing so is that
> when we check & compare all 4 versions for the
> potentially singular transition point that is named
> origin in 3 of them & terminus in the 4th
> it becomes crystal clear that indeed all 4 of these
> variously expressed geopositions actually do refer to
> a single point
>
> yes a single marker & turnpoint at lands end there in
> saint regis west of number 774
>
> & this is even identified in the 1917 usgs topo i
> recently beamed up as number 775
> you may recall
>
> & of course it is indeed unquestionably the very
> ellicott rock itself
> rather than the 2 near neighbors you may also recall i
> previously assumed stood within a very few feet of
> each other based on the very slightly different coords
> of which i had been figuring one must be the ellicott
> rock but couldnt tell which
>
> well
> in fact there is no such difference & no such which
> but only 1 ellicott rock
> 1 terminus
> 1 origin
> 1 sectoral transition point &
> 1 turnpoint zero
> & they are all this 1 lost rock & the point it marks
>
>
> so i reason
> at some time between 1917 & 1988 they stopped calling
> the ellicott rock number 775 & started calling it both
> origin & terminus
> which latter 2 names are after all generally just 2
> different words for the same thing anyway
> &
> at the same time or subsequently
> i also speculate
> they must have lowered the name of the ellicott rock
> onto a second line there on the data sheet
> if just because there wasnt enough room for all that
> writing on the first line
> & then somehow proceeded to confuse themselves & us
> further into thinking origin & terminus & ellicott
> rock were 2 or even as many as 3 different things
> & so added this new inexplicable set of coords for the
> new line too
> tho heaven only knows where they got them from
>
> perhaps it was a nad conversion gone amok or a linear
> transposition or something just as silly
> & without any relation to a real fact of any kind on
> the ground or in the water
>
> & heaven also only knows how the usa managed to find &
> correct this mistake
> if that is indeed the case
> at least 57 years ahead of canada & the ibs itself
>
> or else how the usa went awry
> by belatedly reverting to the treaty of ghent all on
> its own
> after some later treaty had amended it to the
> satisfaction & cognizance of canada & the ibs
> tho this was since obliterated from american memory &
> still unbeknownst to us beepers
>
>
> well
> the mysteries both clarify & ramify
> at least til we hear back from the commish
> but i am glad to have the chance to at least run all
> this thru our brains in preparation for him
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>