ok
never mind
i figured it out
& it seems to me that my arrowhead elevation
situated about 200m west of the dubiously indicated
tripoint position
is indeed contiguous with the rising ground to its
north rather than isolated from it
& does indeed stand & rise appreciably above the flat
overflow lake bed beside it
thanx
very nice
now all we need to do is figure out where the tripoint
really is
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos
<aletheiak@...> wrote:
>
> 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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com