brendan
thanx for thinking of us with all these puzzling data
but when you ask
is it useful or interesting
i have to wonder with you
useful or interesting for what
also
since i dont yet see your multipointing try in all
this effort
i dont understand your annoyance
naturally
nor why you bring it to us here for that matter
tho i can well appreciate that you cant be bothered
indeed learning to be unable to be bothered is perhaps
our primary adventure & highest value here
so thanx for this reminder of it
but as i realize i may well have missed your point
please do explain further
if you wish
what indeed is the use & interest & point of all this
anyway
if not having fun in the making of a point
--- Brendan Whyte <
bwhyte@...> wrote:
> I have uploaded to the files area an Excel
> spreadsheet with the
> measurement data for the smallest Vennbahn enclave.
> Basically it is a series of measurements showing the
> turning points
> of the real boundary.
> These are given as deviations of the boundary from
> an imaginary
> straight line joining adjacent boundary pillars.
> Measuring from one
> stone to the next, the perpendicular deviation from
> this line is
> given (y-coordinate) at each turning point, along
> with the
> corresponding distance along the imaginary line
> (x.coordinate).
> For each of the 4 sides of the enclave, this data is
> graphed to show
> how the boundary wiggles between pillars.
>
> I have also calculated:
> the length of the imaginary lines between pillars,
> the actual boundary length between pillars
> the % difference between these two, and
> the interior angles between these imaginary lines.
>
>
> Note however that there are some inconsistencies in
> the data, which
> has been taken from the official boundary atlas,
> published in 1922 by
> the Boundary Commission itself.
>
> There appear to be some contradictions between
> figures: a straight
> line distance between two pillars, #756 & #757, for
> example, is given
> as both 155.51m and 155.45m in the Atlas. I have
> used the latter
> figure in my calculations. It does not make a
> significant difference
> to the results, either lengths or angles, but it is
> annoying, and I
> cannot understand how either figure can relate to a
> different
> measurement. This seems to occur in several places
> in the atlas two
> figures being given for what seems to be the same
> measurement. I
> cannot explain it.
>
> I also have a small right-angled triangle that
> connects the midpoint
> of the boundary between stones 756 & 759 to a German
> survey control
> point, as having a hypotenuse of either 19.32m (in
> the Atlas) or
> 19.2563m (from my own calculation involving the
> atlas figures for the
> other two sides). Again I cannot see how the Atlas
> figure can apply
> to any other length depicted in the atlas). I have
> used my own figure
> in the ensuing calculations.
>
> Thirdly, one angle given as 133deg 54.3min is
> clearly wrong in the
> atlas. the correct figure should be 226deg 6.3min.
> But as this is
> almost exactly the complementary angle, I can see
> how the mistake
> might have been made in this case. I have used the
> corrected figure.
>
> Let me know if this file is useful/interesting.
>
> I could add in calculations for the area of the
> enclave, but can't be
> bothered right now!
>
>
>
> Brendan
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com