thanx david
this has certainly been a fantastic thread
as i indicated below
the legal wording wont prove the fiat quadripoint pudding but might
fudge it into a satisfactory degree of normalcy
& thus might well coincide with what you are wanting to see here
oregon & florida have the county boundaries in state statutes but some
states have them in their constitution too
m
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., David Mark <dmark@g...> wrote:
> Michael, good point to note that course lines are not identical to
> thalwegs. But surely, the proof of this pudding in this case would
lie in
> the exact wording of the legal descriptions of the various county
> boundaries, and in particular the definition of the Yakima-Kittitas
line
> about the head of its creek, and the King-Pierce line above the head
of
> its creek. Any idea on where to get legal descriptions of the
boundaries
> of the counties of Washington?
>
> David
>
> King - Kittitas - Pierce - Yakima
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, acroorca2002 wrote:
>
> > great paper david
> > & i am pleased jacks fantastic discovery here satisfies your needs
> >
> > also i realize you are working from a theoretical basis
> > & that your modeling is intended to smooth over any rough edges
> > & indeed it seems to me to be successful for that very reason
> >
> > yet from a punctological point of view
> > a primary thalweg line can only be traced to its true source
> > experientially
> > naturally
> > inch by inch
> > & in the upstream direction only
> > & cant simply be declared to fall by extra fiat as it were
> > defined as a course line now & no longer even a true thalweg
> > from any particularly convenient point
> > including even the low point of a saddle
> > deliciously simplifying & satisfying as that is
> > because in reality waters are shed from above the saddle as well
> > & unless you actually perform the sawanabori uphill you can never
be
> > sure you are upon the main stem at any given moment
> >
> > from my own observations & tries at doing just this sort of thing
> > i believe if we stood at naches pass in a heavy rain we would even
be
> > able to see the trickles that fall in both directions from the
saddle
> > there as tributaries to larger trickles that fall from elsewhere
on
> > the transverse ridge
> >
> > so you may pronounce your extra fiat that will make this a perfect
> > quadripoint
> > but i still dont see how there is a true natural fiat quadripoint
by
> > your earlier definition
> > as indeed there might well have been at a mountain peak
> >
> > m
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., David Mark <dmark@g...> wrote:
> > > Thanks, Jack, this IS an instance of what I was looking for,
> > although I
> > > was imagining 4 ridges coming to a peak, and not two ridges and
two
> > > course lines coming to a saddle.
> > >
> > > There is a theory of continuous, smooth surfaces laid our by
Alred
> > Cayley
> > > in 1859, and the famous physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1870,
that
> > shows
> > > that at any saddle point (such as Naches pass), there in fact
are
> > two
> > > course lines that must emanate from the exact point of the
saddle,
> > as well
> > > as two ridge lines running up to peaks. According to that theory
> > this
> > > should indeed be a perfect quadripoint.
> > >
> > > Cayley, A., 1859. On contour lines and slope lines.
Philosophical
> > > Magazine, 18, 264-268.
> > >
> > > Maxwell, J. C., 1870. On hills and dales. Philosophical
Magazine,
> > vol. 40,
> > > 421-427.
> > >
> > > For far more on this topic, see the appropriate section in
> > >
> >
http://wings.buffalo.edu/philosophy/faculty/smith/articles/topography.
> > pdf
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, acroorca2002 wrote:
> > >
> > > > jack
> > > > apologies
> > > > as my library computer was shooting blanks that day
> > > >
> > > > but i think the message was simply that even if kikipiya isnt
a
> > > > perfect fiat quadripoint there might still be a washington
statute
> > > > that makes it a legal quadripoint
> > > >
> > > > & probably nobody but us would think of drawing such fine
> > > > distinctions anyway
> > > > so lets not write it off yet from our list of true megapoints
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > also in the unlikely event that it or they are marked
> > > > i still doubt anyone would think of erecting 2 monuments
> > > > especially on public land & in such a remote place
> > > > when even a small marker would probably suffice to physically
> > cover
> > > > both points so close together
> > > > if they are even distinguishable
> > > > which they probably arent
> > > >
> > > > all in all a pretty ridiculous situation
> > > > & i am sure glad we discovered it
> > > >
> > > > m
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Jack Parsell" <jparsell@n...>
wrote:
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > > I agree that it is not highly probable that there is a
little
> > pool
> > > > > of water in the pass with the water having difficulty
deciding
> > > > > which way to descend, although I've seen that in the
> > Adirondacks.
> > > > > The distance between the 4920 ft. contour lines on each side
of
> > the
> > > > > pass is less than 200 ft. and the drainages line up
> > > > cartographically,
> > > > > but I guess a single precise point is too much to hope for.
It
> > > > looks
> > > > > like pretty rough terrain with 2000 ft gain in elevation
from
> > the
> > > > > nearest paved road so I don't plan to check it out. It would
be
> > > > > nice to know though.
> > > > > Jack
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:18 PM
> > > > > To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TopoZone - Washington quad
county
> > point
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > jack
> > > > > i still like this just as much but my nearsightedness had
missed
> > > > the
> > > > > fact that these are 2 opposite watersheds descending from
that
> > pass
> > > > > for i was imagining it was just one river running thru a gap
> > > > > oops
> > > > >
> > > > > now that you have said this tho
> > > > > i have to think a purely fiat quadripoint is technically as
> > > > unlikely
> > > > > here as on that mountaintop in france without a little
fudging
> > or
> > > > > coaxing
> > > > > because it is almost inconceivable that 2 sawanaboris should
> > ascend
> > > > > to meet at a single precise point along a crest line
> > > > > but they would by their nature produce 2 distinct fiat
tripoints
> > > > > however close together
> > > > > m
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "Jack Parsell" <jparsell@n...>
wrote:
> > > > > > This quad-county point of King - Kittitas - Pierce -
Yakima
> > > > > > counties is at N 47 05' 14", W 121 22' 42" at Naches
Pass at
> > > > > > about 4920 ft. National Forest Development Rd.#70 from
Naches
> > > > > > Pass Campground runs to within a little over a mile from
the
> > > > > > quad-point. The Naches Trail and a jeep road cross the
pass
> > and
> > > > > > the Pacific Crest trail passes about 1/2 mile west. It
appears
> > > > > > the King-Kittitas and Pierce-Yakima lines are on a ridge.
The
> > > > > > King-Pierce line is the beginning of Meadow Creek drainage
and
> > > > > > the Kittitas-Yakima line is the beginning of Middle Fork
> > Little
> > > > > > Naches River drainage. Thus it is an intersection of a
ridge
> > > > > > line and two drainages all of which are natural features.
> > > > > > I belive that is what David was looking for.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >