I see the URL was split so here is is again:
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&e=505638&n=4308632&s=25&size=s
BJB
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., bjbutler@b... wrote:
> Another related issue involves extreme points with man-made
> extensions. The southernmost point in New Jersey is ambiguous.
> There are two breakwaters extending from two points on the same
> beach. The eastern breakwater extends further south by few meters,
> but the western breakwater is attached to a point on the beach a
few
> meters south of the corresponding point on the eastern breakwater.
> Which of these is the southernmost point of "land" in NJ? Teh map
> showing this situtaion is at http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?
> z=18&e=505638&n=4308632&s=25&size=s. I have been to both points
and
> still cannot make up my mind.
>
> BJB
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > Mmm... there we go again (you're going to keep the scores,
David?).
> > My (personal, needless to say) opinion is that the border in the
> > tunnel depends entirely on the nature of the border on the ground
> or
> > in the water above the tunnel. So: internal water -> land bdy.,
> terr.
> > water -> +/- equal to land bdy., etc. I think that in this case
the
> > legal status of the territory, be it dry or wet, doesn't change
> (but
> > perhaps I'm wrong).
> >
> > The same goes for bridges (they can bridge water _and_ land, of
> > course).
> >
> > Most the polders in the Netherlands were made before all these
> legal
> > nautical zones were implemented, or just didn't effect them (the
> ones
> > in the Zuiderzee, which, together with the nl part of the Wadden
> Sea,
> > was internal water, before it was closed by the Afsluitdijk).
There
> > are some places that are more recent _and_ could have an effect
on
> > the zones: the piers at IJmuiden, and those at the Hook of
Holland,
> > combined with the Rotterdam harbour extension plan called the
> > Maasvlakte.
> >
> > This is an interesting question. The normal reaction would be
that
> > the 12 nm limit adapts to the new coastline. But then the
> Netherlands
> > would unilaterally annex parts that are outside of it. Luckily it
> has
> > no effect on the EEZ. But somewhere else in the world it could
well
> > have, after all we don't have the monopoly on polders and
> landfills.
> > Are countries, by "unilaterally" extending their territory,
allowed
> > to take pieces of "everyones land" as well? Any opinions on this
> from
> > anyone?
> >
> > I remember this problem from the Bidasoa/Txingudi question we
> > discussed a couple of months ago: are the French infringing on
the
> > condominium by reclaiming part of it (which they did, to build
most
> > of the seaside resort of Hendaia/Hendaye-Plage). Or was there an
> > additional international agreement on this? I haven't found such
a
> > document (yet). There was such an agreement on the expansion of a
> > small refuge harbour on the Spanish side, in Hondarribia.
> >
> > Peter S.
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., David Mark <dmark@g...> wrote:
> > > Personally, I would count a tunnel as a land boundary-- why not?
> > > (Not a bridge, and I'm not sure about a causeway.)
> > >
> > > It is now 1 to 1, what do the rest of you say?
> > >
> > > A key point would be, what law applies? Does building a
causeway
> > change
> > > the three-mile limit at all? What about coastal landfills, or
> > drainage
> > > projects? Did the dykes and polders of the Netherlands change
> > their 3
> > > mile limits at all?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Brendan Whyte wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would not count a bridge or causeway as a land boundary,
any
> > more than the
> > > > chunnel. Thus Singapore is an island, as is Bahrain, and
> Denmark
> > has one
> > > > land border.
> > > > Interesting special cases but not proper land boundaries.
> > > > BW
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...>
> > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Gideon Biger - reply to
BW+query!
> > > > >Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:31:59 -0000
> > > > >
> > > > >Is this a land border? A sea border? Or an air space border?
A
> > border
> > > > >on a bridge is peculiar...
> > > > >
> > > > >If it is within the 12 nm zone of both countries, I would
say
> it
> > is
> > > > >above territorial waters. So if not a land border, then
> something
> > > > >very similar. But I don't think this Gideon Biger counts
> > boundaries
> > > > >in terr. water as land boundaries. He would count boundaries
in
> > > > >internal water as such (incl. all sea inside of the
baseline).
> > But I
> > > > >don't have his book here, so what do I know...
> > > > >
> > > > >Peter S.
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Mats Hessman <Mats@l...> wrote:
> > > > > > > don't fret about your country only having one border.
> After
> > > > > > > all, Australia
> > > > > > > is no-Biger than yours!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Well, Brendan, I guess you're right, DK most
> > > > > > > >certainly deserves no more than one copy...
> > > > > > > >having only one boundary line...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I must protest! From June 2000 Denmark is entitled
> > > > > > to another copy of Biger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take a look at the non-wet boundary marker on
> > > > > > Peter's own site (!) at
> > > > > > http://www.geocities.com/mafiapetedk/bordersweden2.html.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mats
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
______________________________________________________________________
> > ___
> > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >