examples of maps depicting kztmuz not as a completely
arbitrary cardinal tee junction such as might fall
indiscrimately anywhere
but as a slightly more wye shaped convergence
with kztm & tmuz presumably homing in on some landmark
just there
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/kazakstan_admin96.jpg
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kazakhst.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/uzbekist.pdf
&
comparing the new improved topo more carefully to the
satpic
even without regard to the unreliable border
depictions on them both
or the peculiar double register of roads many hundreds
of feet apart
one of which is actually shown going off the cliff
oops
etc etc
i find the topo isograms seem quite sketchy & at best
only crudely approximative of the visible topography
for example the elevation on which the tripoint is
indicated on the topo doesnt appear to be an isolated
rise on the satpic but rather a shoulder or spur or
peninsular projection descending from still higher
ground
no small detail
even granted we are no longer talking about the
elevation of the highest ground or tallest building in
louisiana
oops again
but perhaps only a mere 250 feet of indicated altitude
differential
in close proximity to the indicated tripoint position
or the equivalent of say a much more modest skyscraper
or hilltop climb
but jesper i still dont understand what you mean when
you say
> Please turn on terrain, tilt the image and find the
area flat.
my terrain box comes already checked & so presumably
turned on in the default setting
so can you explain what would be necessary for me to
actually get a horizontal look at the terrain upon &
around my arrowhead projection
as you seem to suggest one could easily do
if that is indeed possible in this case
since i am still not expecting to find my best guessed
target area flat
i am intrigued to learn how to do this generally
but especially so for this particular case
--- aletheia kallos <
aletheiak@...> wrote:
> & come to think of it
> i keep liking my sloping natural arrowhead chink
> shoulder guess better
> when i try to think of how this outlandish location
> might have come to be selected for the tripoint in
> the
> first place
>
> for kzuz converges from the north along the 56th
> meridian until it reaches the end of the plateau
> & then goes slightly over the edge but evidently
> only
> as far down the chink as this marvelously coincident
> natural landmark beach point overlooking the lake if
> not actually projecting into it as a point of land
>
> but tmuz & kztm do not in fact converge with kzuz
> there exactly at right angles
> notwithstanding the topo depiction of them along a
> parallel of latitude
> as if to form a perfect tee junction
> for that detail is a totally bogus border depiction
> i
> must tell you
> but rather
> they converge there as if offhandedly
> to meet this idealized rendezvous point at whatever
> slightly odd angles they must
>
> better maps show they may both follow geodetic line
> segments to the trijunction target point
> but neither of them is a true east west line
> & they do form a distinct angle by converging at the
> landmark in this happenchance way
>
> & i think it is precisely their slightly unusual
> angles of convergence that really do point to this
> arrowhead tip
> & give away their special relationship to it
> as they perform & celebrate deliberately what the
> 56th
> meridian has done only by chance
>
> otherwise kzuz might have continued south thru this
> wilderness until it really did strike a single
> continuous tmuz & kztm at right angles
>
> for the soviets could just as easily have
> arbitrarily
> done it that way as they perhaps really did do it
> somewhat more sensibly this way
>
> or so i would dare to speculate at this point
>
> --- aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> > agreed about all of the following
> > except i would still say the tripoint is not
> > necessarily within
> > altho at least partly surrounded by
> > your relatively flat lacustrine basin
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I have gone to Jesper's source, zoomed in, and
> > > captured a clearer
> > > version for our interpretation. It is attached.
> > >
> > > First, the contours are in feet, not meters.
> (The
> > > Map Mart site says
> > > so.) Note also that the distance scale is in
> > miles.
> > >
> > > The contour interval is 250 feet. On this map,
> > > contours of 0, 250, 500,
> > > 750, and 1,000 feet are shown.
> > >
> > > Between the 750 and 500 contours (to the
> northeast
> > > of the lake, anyway),
> > > we find the depiction of the escarpment.
> > >
> > > Descending from the 0 contour, we find, first,
> the
> > > shore of the
> > > intermittent lake, then the shore of the more
> > > permanent lake.
> > >
> > > Within the northwestern lobe of the intermittent
> > > lake, we find several
> > > shoals that rise above the 0 contour (although
> > they
> > > are covered,
> > > incongruously, with the blue stipple indicating
> > > intermittent
> > > inundation). The tripoint appears upon the
> > shoulder
> > > of one of these
> > > shoals, just slightly above the 0 contour.
> > >
> > > I think that we can conclude that this
> best-known
> > > topographic map
> > > (whatever its possible imprecisions) shows the
> > > tripoint in a relatively
> > > flat lacustrine basin.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:37 PM
> > > Subject: Re: SV: [BoundaryPoint] yikes kztmuz is
> > > reportedly undelineated
> > > & definitely elusive
> > >
> > >
> > > > as you say could not be very much higher
> > > > please be aware
> > > > the map if it can be believed shows the
> tripoint
> > 2
> > > > distinct levels above the normal water level
> of
> > > the
> > > > recognizably outlined lake
> > > > &
> > > > at least some if not all the elevation
> gradients
> > > are
> > > > 250 meters apart
> > > >
> > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jesper,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks very much for the three PDF maps of
> the
> > > area
> > > >> and the referral to Google Earth. When
> Google
> > > Earth
> > > >> debuted, I tried it, but it did not work for
> > me.
> > > I
> > > >> tried it again today, and it works great!
> > > >>
> > > >> I think that your PDF maps demonstrate that
> the
> > > lake
> > > >> in the tripoint depression is variable in
> level
> > > and
> > > >> size over time or season, flooding the
> tripoint
> > > at
> > > >> times. Since this appears to be the case,
> the
> > > >> tripoint could not be very much higher in
> > > elevation
> > > >> than the more regularly wet lakebed farther
> > > >> southeast.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lowell G. McManus
> > > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: Jesper Nielsen/Borderbase
> > > >> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:47 PM
> > > >> Subject: SV: SV: [BoundaryPoint] yikes
> kztmuz
> > > is
> > > >> reportedly undelineated & definitely elusive
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> No fancy results of terrain (or 3d) to show
> > as
> > > the
> > > >> entire areas is very flat. The tripoint
> itself
> > is
> > > at
> > > >> water level at 0m and the surroundings do no
> go
> > > >> higher than 160 meters.
> > > >>
> > > >> But please learn to use the free Google
> > Earth,
> > > >> downloadable at http://earth.google.com ,
> > > yourself.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jesper
> > > >> --
> > > >> Borderbase - your online guide to
> > international
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com