Subject: Re: gbfrnl, evhritsi, cafr, etc<br/>
Date: Dec 07, 2001 @ 22:42<br/>
Author: granthutchison (&quot;granthutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="4989.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4994.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4988.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4990.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4992.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1373374680">Peter:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; But the maps that I do find, sometimes have the <br/>
&gt; boundary turning point like on the map that you posted, but sometimes <br/>
&gt; they don&#39;t. An example of the latter is http://www.caribbean-on-<br/>
&gt; line.com/sm/smmap.shtml . I really don&#39;t know what is the truth here.<br/>
 </span></blockquote>Yes, there&#39;s not a lot of consistency in the maps I&#39;ve seen. But from<br/>
the point of view of the equidistance line, the dry turning point<br/>
isn&#39;t that important - so long as the border reaches water along that<br/>
SW-facing line of beaches, the equidistance line is going to trend SW.<br/>
Have you seen a map with the border reaching the western shore<br/>
elsewhere? Prescott&#39;s equidistance line looks as if it must be taking<br/>
its origin from the western tip of the island.<br/>
Grant</div>