but
to continue with the deliberations about where the
next stop
should be
there is an additional difficulty awaiting us
in
bulgaria
that wouldnt at all be awaiting us in belize
unless we slow
down & defer bulgaria long enough for
the iso folks to finally catch up
& tell us what to
call the inherited former bgcsro & bgcsmk
tripoints
i mean now that the former serbia & montenegro aka
cs
has become serbia & montengro individually
but with their
obligatory new digraphs still
unannounced
& indeed so long delayed
that we cant be sure theyll
ever be announced
& tho we have
already visited several erstwhile cs
tripoints fairly comfortably
by both
noting their transformations & nicknaming them
in isofips
even while
awaiting their actually proper names to be
given in pure iso
& tho we
could certainly do so again & again if
necessary since all the nicknames
are already known &
in use
at least by me
nevertheless
any
delay in reaching bulgaria will reduce accordingly
our chances of having to
extemporize in isofips there
at all
by the time we do get there
should
the iso folks finally announce the new digraphs
in the interim
so
there you have at least another good reason to keep
slowing down
if
not to divert immediately to belize
nor is there any really good reason
not to detour in
this way now
since we have already done so for the
similarly
overlooked bfbjne
& so
tho i can tell you belize is
not entirely without her
own problems
the resulting attached tripoint
stretching diagram for
bzgtmx is based on the known geocoords for the
new
marker position
or at least the precisely known longitude
&
approximate latitude
which tho not yet the legally agreed position
is
fairly inescapable
& the formerly supposed position
aka
gtmx marker 107
is about 200 meters due west
or roughly a quarter of the
length of the stretching
line shown here
& this extract from
message 11319 explains everything
> > > there are actually 2 knownmarkers there
> > >presumptive one
> > > the formerly but wrongly
> > > known as the vertice de aguas turbiasnew one
> > > is probably 190 to 205 meters due west of the
> > > & is actually now considered the first bordermarker on gtmx
> > >which has already been acknowledged by all 3
> > > & this newly presumptive one
> > >
> > > butawaits long overdue ratifications in an
> > >gives guatemala the extra sliver all agree she
> > >17 deg 49 min
> > > neither one has ever been the legal tripoint tho
>
> > both markers are more or less exactly at north lat
> >deg 09 min 06 sec & 749
> > the old marker
> > is at west long 89
> > datum presumablynad27
> > per united states state dept in ibs number 159sec & 283
> >
> > & the new marker
> > is at west long 89 deg 09 min 00
> > datum presumably wgs84per belizean concession above & joint resurvey
> >
> >datum
> > if these longitudes are expressed in the same
> > then the distance between them would be 190 meters&