Subject: Re: Another Büsingen map & those rules
Date: Nov 26, 2001 @ 20:41
Author: orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


you are scrambling jespers rules a little here peter

if not also not taking his name in vain



in fairness he said signs not markers in rule 2



& signs of a border do inform about it without necessarily marking it

so i think he only means it would be foolish to mistake a sign for a marker



& i agree a map should be accurate too



m



--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Peter Smaardijk" <smaardijk@y...> wrote:

> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@h...> wrote:

> > 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.

>

> Hear, hear. Rule one I can live with. You can't expect locals to know

> everything about the place they live in. Rules no. 2 and 3

> (inaccurate maps & markers) are inexcusable. Of course, with maps,

> scale is always an issue, but when scale allows accuracy, a map

> should be accurate. Period.

>

> Peter S.