thanx peter
this is awesome ghostplay
the only part i still dont get is your deduction that the belgian interprovincial boundary must run eastward from marker 75 along the road with the belu international boundary itself
for it seems to me equally impossible for be2lilu to follow delu in either direction
neither across & down the road toward defrlu
nor up the near side of the road toward bedelu
as it seems bound by all the data to head somehow obliquely across the road toward the northeast
m
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "ps1966nl" <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> 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.