--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "ps1966nl" <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> Eef Berns wrote:
> "(...)- the included topographic map-detail seems to indicate that
the
> belux-border to the west is in the middle of the road. The present
> provincial border to the east is however shown at the northern edge
> of the road
> - to Peter's scheme I have added a green line which is in my view
the
> exact course of the international cq provincial border and probably
> the course of the international borders before 1918
> - so neither of the two bordermarkers is on the exact tripoint
spot,
> understandable because of the inconvenience of putting a border
> marker in the middle of the road. Still a question remains: why is
> the stone marker B not placed on the north side of the road, where
> the border bends 90 degrees to the east? It (or its wooden
> predecessor) was placed before 1843, the year that the belux
ironcast
> markers were placed."
>
> Thanks for the map and clarification. But this map still leaves me
> puzzled, because it's not quite what I expected. Could it be that
the
> tripoint is in the middle of the road, and that both markers mark it
> (on both sides of the road)? Or did the provincial boundary change
> once it became a provincial boundary (i.e. when the international
> boundary was changed)? Was no. 75 moved at one point, or was no. 286
> moved? Maybe no. 75 used to be a pair, and the northern one was
> replaced by no. 286. But your question remains... Still, I am happy
> to accept the solution as given by this (Belgian, I think) topomap.
>
> Peter S.
guys
glad you are both happy to believe in the map depiction
while i will also remain happy to believe that boundary markers mark
boundaries
unless expressly trumped by treaty texts &or treaty maps
ordinary maps & even government maps such as this dont normally trump
markers
indeed all such nontreaty maps are merely somebodys level best try at
depicting the truth
& if you accept maps & this particular map unquestioningly then you
may be in for some surprises on this road
on the other hand
because there is a common custom in europe of marking midstream
boundaries with matching monuments on both banks
i suppose we cant completely rule out your surmise that even this
unmatched pair of markers might just be a weird adaptation of that wet
line method to a dry roadstead
unlikely as that still feels to me
for it wouldnt merely be rare but to my knowledge unique
so i may yet be in for just that surprise down the middle of this road
but am still far from believing it without the substantiation of a
treaty text
or perhaps do you know of other examples of such displacement in your
vast experience eef
for even 1 such corroboration anywhere would help me to bend my mind
in your direction
also i cant forget the comment peter reported that the 2 markers used
to have another close companion now missing & unreplaced
since i can still believe marker 75 is old bedelu & 286 is belu1
i would expect the third marker to have been lilu1 & to have stood
also on or near a shoulder of the road a similarly short distance
eastward of either of the others
the map shows a probability of it lying east of 286 rather than of 75
i wouldnt normally bet on the map but for guessing the position of the
missing lilu1 & thus completing my rationalization of all the data i
have nothing better
wherever lilu1 may have stood however
i think the lilu line would still have had to run from lilu1 to its
terminus at 75 rather than 286
m
also peter
lilu couldnt have changed course when belu was made in 1843 because
lilu was until then actually nlpr
& even until 1921 was still bede before it came into being as lilu
& eef
stone marker b is not on the north side of the road because it was
originally just a turn point of nlpr without any necessary relation to
the road such as you believe belu has & was thus free to have fallen
anywhere