Subject: eelvru question seems to be settling out<br/>
Date: Dec 24, 2005 @ 20:02<br/>
Author: aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos &lt;aletheiak@...&gt;)<br/>
Prev&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next<br/>
<a href="19027.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="19029.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-896726313">a comment in this fresh report of the working lvru<br/>
border agreement<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.baltictimes.com/hot1.php?art_id=14315">http://www.baltictimes.com/hot1.php?art_id=14315</a><br/>
implies latvia will be pleased to accept some<br/>
evidently minor soviet era territorial losses <br/>
just to expedite the agreement<br/>
<br/>
& these are apparently confined to a specific area<br/>
about midway between eelvru & bylvru<br/>
<br/>
& i believe there was never any question about the<br/>
location of bylvru anyway<br/>
so there still isnt any now<br/>
but for the eelvru tripoint we have been considering 2<br/>
distinct probable locations<br/>
<br/>
oops <br/>
or why<br/>
<br/>
one of them followed a supposedly recent soviet<br/>
modification of lvru along a fence line iirc<br/>
& an older version a few hundred meters away was at a<br/>
stream confluence <br/>
again iirc<br/>
tho my recollection is admittedly at least as hazy as<br/>
the original report of this probable change<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
& i know some of our members have done the research<br/>
& have visited both probable locations also as<br/>
carefully as possible<br/>
just to be sure that they were at the correct location<br/>
no matter what the truth was <br/>
or would become<br/>
<br/>
but if my reading of this article is correct<br/>
then no change has actually occurred nor will it occur<br/>
from the original eelvru position<br/>
<br/>
which would mean <br/>
the tripoint stands at or very near that stream<br/>
confluence<br/>
once again or as it always has <br/>
if i am not mistaken<br/>
<br/>
but can anyone recall the supposed basis for the<br/>
supposed change<br/>
or any further particulars that would help pin this<br/>
down now that it seems so easy to resolve<br/>
<br/>
it was last addressed in<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/17821">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/17821</a><br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/10361">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/10361</a><br/>
& the discussion following that<br/>
<br/>
but except for one bp file most of the maps that have<br/>
been shown are gone now<br/>
<br/>
& pix were forbidden<br/>
<br/>
so we could use stand some reinforcement of what we do<br/>
at least think we know here now<br/>
on the occasion of this fresh suggestion that no<br/>
change of eelvru has in fact occurred<br/>
if anyone can & would care to fill any of this in & or<br/>
correct my recollection <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
	<br/>
		<br/>
__________________________________ <br/>
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. <br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/">http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/</a></div>