--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "granthutchison" <granthutchison@b...>
wrote:
> Peter:
> > By the way: look also at
> > http://www.shom.fr/fr_page/fr_prod_lettre/13/lettre13_3.htm .
There
> > is a little map of the St. Pierre & Miquelon EEZ (at "Partage de
> > territoires", click on "carte")
> Marvellous! You've abolished one of my perfs, since St P&M clearly
now
> have a corridor to the high seas. Again, this casts into doubt the
> accuracy of the map at www.maritimeboundaries.com, which shows the
> Canadian/French equidistance line enclaving St P&M as
a "multilateral
> agreement". From the text at Partage de territoires, it seems that
> Canada liked this border, but France didn't.
Maybe, but I don't see an EEZ/high seas border on this map. Although
it would be silly to give France a 200 nm long corridor, at the end
of which it _still_ doesn't reach high seas. But this _is_ the
www.maritimeboundaries.com situation!
>
> I'm still puzzling over what implication your Croatian watery
exclave
> has on my EEZ survey. That Slovenian corridor to the edge of
> territorial waters opens into what would be the Croatian continental
> shelf area, if the 1970 boundary between Italy and former Yugoslavia
> is adhered to (and it's marked on the map, as a continuation of the
> Italian territorial seas border line). So at "my" level,the
> quadripoint at the tip of the exclave changes from High
> Seas/Italy/Croatia/Slovenia to Croatia/Italy/Croatia/Slovenia. A
> topological anomaly I'm having trouble coming to terms with!
Yes, but one Croatia is terr. waters; the other one is EEZ. Not less
interesting, of course. Still, I am not really 100% convinced of the
Slovenian corridor having exactly the same status as the "normal"
terr. waters of Slovenia. There might be something "under the water"
still. In other words: I'd love to see the text of the treaty! (don't
we all)
Peter S.