Subject: Re: Old bedelux mystery solved?<br/>
Date: May 14, 2002 @ 20:03<br/>
Author: ps1966nl (&quot;ps1966nl&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="6475.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="6481.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic6472.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="6476.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="6478.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-923705853">acroorca2002 wrote:<br/>
&quot;guys <br/>
glad you are both happy to believe in the map depiction (...)&quot;<br/>
<br/>
OK, I should have written &quot;I am happy to accept the solution as given <br/>
by this topomap UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES THIS WRONG. A treaty text <br/>
naturally trumps any old topomap, of course.<br/>
<br/>
&quot;(...)there is a common custom in europe of marking midstream (...)&quot;<br/>
<br/>
Yes indeed. This looks like a very real possibility to me.<br/>
<br/>
&quot;(...)a weird adaptation of that wet line method to a dry roadstead <br/>
(...)&quot;<br/>
<br/>
Not so weird, given the dusty nature of unsurfaced roads like they <br/>
would have been in the days these boundaries were drawn. Disks or <br/>
metal plates are not very practical in those conditions.<br/>
 <br/>
&quot;(...)the map shows a probability of it [PS: the third marker, if <br/>
there was any] lying east of 286 rather than of 75 (...)&quot;<br/>
<br/>
Maybe at the point where the provincial boundary turns north. Acc. to <br/>
the map and my own experience, there is no boundary marker <br/>
(anymore??). Strange for such a significant corner in the boundary.<br/>
<br/>
&quot;(...)lilu couldnt have changed course when belu was made in 1843 <br/>
because lilu was until then actually nlpr <br/>
& even until 1921 was still bede before it came into being as lilu <br/>
(...)&quot;<br/>
<br/>
No, but after 1921, I mean. When it wasn&#39;t an international boundary <br/>
anymore.<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.</div>