Subject: Re: the elusive frgbnl et al<br/>
Date: Dec 06, 2001 @ 23:11<br/>
Author: granthutchison (&quot;granthutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="4972.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4974.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4967.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4972.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4974.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-163256312">Peter: <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; Although <br/>
&gt; it would be silly to give France a 200 nm long corridor, at the end <br/>
&gt; of which it _still_ doesn&#39;t reach high seas. But this _is_ the <br/>
&gt; www.maritimeboundaries.com situation!<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>Surely a corridor has to have *something* at the other end? Otherwise<br/>
it would be a &quot;tongue&quot;.<br/>
The St P&M area shown on www.maritimeboundaries.com looks like a<br/>
sliver taken from the equidistance solution given by Prescott -<br/>
denying St P&M its equidistance dues in the Cabot Strait, but still<br/>
pinching it off into a triangle by virtue of the concave Newfoundland<br/>
coast behind it.<br/>
<br/>
Grant</div>