You are incredibly (yet very credible) right here Michael.

Sorry.

Peter S.

--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., orc@o... wrote:
> 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.