acroorca2002 wrote:
(Peter S.: "(...)The other marker (B) (...)"

"here peter i assume you must mean marker a rather than marker b
in case anyone is still trying to follow all this
which i can vouch is well worth the extra effort & in fact great fun"

Yes, you're right. I mean marker A. So marker B is the old tripoint,
bearing no. 75 (see my follow-up message), and marker A is the last
belu marker (no. 286) before the boundary reaches the old tripoint.

"(...)just as the 1824 monlpr obeliskoid at modern bedenl was not
replaced by a tall pointy 1843 benl marker
so the somewhat similar but probably slightly older paleobedelu
obeliskoid was not replaced by an 1843 belu marker either

moreover both obeliskoids are stylistically similar also to the
obeliskoids of the denl demarcation of 1819
of which they would appear to be the nonidentical but practically
twin terminal monuments

& the original wooden 1819 moresnet markers that were eventually
replaced by stone obeliskoids too may also have been in this same
style from the start

tho that is admittedly the most speculative & least necessary detail
of the analysis (...)"

Thanks for confirming what I have gradually come to think too. I
think you're absolutely right.

But I still would love to see cartographic evidence of the belu
border coming from the west, following the north of the road, then
crossing it, and the provincial border then starting to go to the
east along the south side of the road. Somehow I feel that this
situation is too special to just rely on our deduction (albeit a
logical deduction) of what those two boundary markers represent.

Peter S.