I am sorry, among the mistakes I made while typing my messages, I
wrote: 'Well, just to correct this above-quoted 2004 reply you wrote:
actually it is not Ile Verte (Green Island, the biggest island, with
the Canadian lighthouse on its Eastern side) which is nicked - nor
Little Green Island (the second largest island of the group), but it
is L'Enfant Perdu de l'Ile Verte (Green Island's Lost Child, i.e. a
rock far away from Green Island) and also the western group of
Little Green Island group, also located far from Green Island.'
This has to be corrected in: 'and also the western rock of Little
Green Island group etc'
I also wrote about point 9 of the 1972 Sea boundary line agreement.
Of course, what I wanted to write is that I flew over this point 2
months 'ago'.
Now about your reply:
you missed nothing important with the bottom of my message you did
not get, except I concluded with: 'Sorry for having been quite long
for only small turning points'.
And also:
- Chimerical quest, yes.
- OK. Let's stay with two only FRCA boundary wet/dry 'shorepoints'
(not shoreline).
- the 1972 agreement says 'Enfant Perdu de l'Ile Verte (Canada)' so
we can consider this rock is Canadian. However, it does not say the
western rock of the Little Green Island group is Canadian. It says
nothing, just indicating where is located the wet/dry turning point
on this rock. The text that says that the rock is left to Canada is
not the official agreement text, nor the official appendix. It is
only a US interpretation of the agreement.
- metaboundary: OK, that is clear.
- a french point but not really any french shore: I agree.
I guess you can read the rest the message, with the parts of y
message you did not get, directly on Yahoo groups website.
> but what i meant by this is on a still finer level of
> detail than even this map affords
OK, I understand.
> & my guess hinges only on the fact that the turnpoint
> angles are fairly acute while the land forms they
> enclose are relatively obtuse
> obviously it is much easier to nick anything at only a
> single point with a wide angle turnpoint than with an
> enclosing one
> also
> even taking romain & his gis program at their word on
> the geocoords
> since we cant actually see the lines of latitude &
> longitude there
> the treaty nevertheless gives these coords only to
> approximate integral degminsecs & in no particular
> datum
> so clearly the textual description must trump the
> supposed geopositions
> as i think he also realizes in finally crediting &
> preferring the red line
I agree with the red line.
As you might have noticed, DMAHC 14340 chart (20th edition, Nov.
1943, revised November 11, 1972) give points 4 and 5 according to
the latitude and longitude degrees, and it gives the same result as
what Romain got: there is a strange difference, the point awaited to
be on Enfant Perdu de l'Ile Verte shore being not on the rock but,
instead of this, quite far, in the East, in the sea, and the point
awaited to be on the Southwestern islet being located ... on Little
Green Island. Two mistakes: if you follow the description, we must
conclude that two errors occured on that map too.
> however i dont understand on what basis he ascribes
> french nationality to the enfant perdu de l ile verte
He made a mistake with that, Enfant perdu de l'Ile Verte is not
French.
> there is apparently more than one enfant perdu
Actually, there are three Enfant perdu:
1 one French, located South of Saint Pierre
2 one Canadian, located off Newfoundland (Southwestern of Burin
Peninsula)
3 one Canadian, which is Enfant perdu de l'Ile Verte, not too far
away from Little Green Island group.
> or else the agreement errs in ascribing first one
> nationality & then the other to it
> but the enfant perdu of turnpoint 4 is clearly
> designated by the treaty as canada only
It is cleary designated as 'Enfant Perdu [de l'Ile Verte] (Canada)'
(only once) in the appendix of the agreement.
> > CHS chart 4490 would certainly give us a clue
> > regarding this
> > hypothetis. Since I am not anymore in North America,
> > I have more
> > difficulties to find it, here in Europe.
>
> yes i wish we could somehow inspire our resident
> canadians to give a call to ottawa or their local map
> store for this
>
> > The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris has
> > answered me they
> > have a chart with their 1972 agreement copy, but the
> > chart is said
> > to be 'too big to be copied'... :(
>
> could you visit them in paris for the thrill of just
> eyeballing it
> & perhaps sketch the essential little parts of it for
> us
I will ask them if the public can access to this map (which I am not
sure by now) and if the answer is yes, I will then go to see and
picture it when I will be in Paris (I live in Cannes, French
Riviera).
> > In addition, I do not know if anywhere else around
> > the world there
> > are islands under one rule located in the national
> > waters of another
> > countries. Do you know if there are some?
>
> not sure but likoma & chisumulu may be the only ones
> in the world
Yes, these islands parts of Malawi within Mozambique's waters is a
good example, thanks.
Another one (yet not an island this time) I have found is the
following:
on St.Martin island, on the Eastern part of it, Oyster Pond's shore
and land is French (located on the Northern side of the 'lagoon')
but all the lagoon's waters are Dutch. The lagoon is entirely under
Dutch sovereignty, but the Northern shore is French.
Xavier