One has to ask about the purpose of a map, given what the results are
of these last messages about Busingen. It seems a border stone on the
south side of a road marks a point in the middle of a road. If a map
is to show physical characteristics of a site, then the actual
placement of the border stone is what should be shown - but if the
border it represents is in the middle of a road, then the border
shown on a map should not merely be a "connect the dots" exercize...
the border should be shown slightly north of the marker... unless of
course you choose the metal plate in the street and not the stone
marker as the item to show on the map... or maybe one should show
both.
I just came back from photographing the Washington DC /
Virginia / Maryland markers at Jones Point (which I'll publish here in
a day or so). While three entities are involved, only two are
mentioned on the two stones that are there. One of the two is a
tri-point marker, but only two entities, Virginia and DC are noted on
the stone. Neither stone (it appears) really stands on the border.
One, between Maryland and Virginia, mentions that a turn in the border
(from its path along the shoreline to a southerly direction across
the mouth of a creek, is 42 feet south of the stone with an arrow
on it marking the direction. The other, the tri-point marker makes
one believe the border is where the stone is - on dry land three to
six feet above the river water - while acts of acts of Congress put
the border at either low or high water mark, depending upon which one
you read and believe applies. Alexandria old town floods occasionaly,
and when it does, Jones point must go under water, too, but other than
during exceptions like floods, I don't think the river water is ever
normally as high as the stone.
Tomorrow is Monday - I'll be making some calls to see what the
District's legal staff and the Geodetic survey believes. Stay tuned.
I suspect there is a missing DC-Maryland marking.
Regards
Len Nadybal
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Jesper & Nicolette Nielsen" <jesniel@i...>
wrote:
> The picture in message 4528
(
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/message/4528) is taken of
boundary marker 7, and is south of the road. Number 8 is north of the
road, while number 6 (metal plate) is in the middle of the road
crossing.
>
> Jesper
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Smaardijk
> To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 3:35 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Another Büsingen map
>
>
> On both maps I have seen before this one (the "Farmer G." map, as
I
> call it, and the recently posted topomap), Buesingen boundary
marker
> no. 7 is on the north side of the road, just like nos. 6, 8, and
9,
> leaving this road entirely in Germany (until the crossroads at no.
> 6). But on this map, no. 7 is on the south side! I find this very
> strange! Was the road changed (unlikely), was the boundary changed
> (even more unlikely), or is this an error on the map? A very
strange
> error to make, however!
>
> I would say that the most likely cause is that no. 7 was illegally
> moved to the other side of the road, and the maker of this map
> consequently was misled about the course of the boundary. Although
I
> realise that this too is a very wild guess and only sounds a
trifle
> more likely than the other possibilities.
>
> Peter S.
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Jesper & Nicolette Nielsen"
> <jesniel@i...> wrote:
> > Courtesy of Peter Hering (I hope)
> >
> > Jesper
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.