Subject: Re: Old bedelux mystery solved?<br/>
Date: May 14, 2002 @ 22:33<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="6477.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="6485.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic6472.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="6480.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="6482.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-362047356">--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;ps1966nl&quot; &lt;smaardijk<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; OK, I should have written &quot;I am happy to accept the solution as <br/>
 </span></blockquote>given <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; by this topomap UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES THIS WRONG. A treaty text <br/>
&gt; naturally trumps any old topomap, of course.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>yes yes <br/>
shouts of joy here too<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &quot;(...)there is a common custom in europe of marking midstream (...)&quot;<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Yes indeed. This looks like a very real possibility to me.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>ok i value it higher in that case<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &quot;(...)a weird adaptation of that wet line method to a dry roadstead <br/>
&gt; (...)&quot;<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Not so weird, given the dusty nature of unsurfaced roads like they <br/>
&gt; would have been in the days these boundaries were drawn. Disks or <br/>
&gt; metal plates are not very practical in those conditions.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>right & the american style of marker crypt embedded within the road <br/>
is still unreported from anywhere in europe or anywhere else in the <br/>
world<br/>
so you really may have a point here about it being an unmarked or <br/>
indirectly marked tripoint <br/>
especially if the road predates the belu partition<br/>
<br/>
but where else in europe have we seen a road centerline boundary<br/>
strong deja vu<br/>
didnt mats report a possible instance of this some time ago<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &quot;(...)the map shows a probability of it [PS: the third marker, if <br/>
&gt; there was any] lying east of 286 rather than of 75 (...)&quot;<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Maybe at the point where the provincial boundary turns north. <br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>good chance i think<br/>
that would make it both the initial marker of lilu & its first <br/>
turnstone tho not its initial point<br/>
<br/>
but didnt the text you translated indicate this missing third <br/>
companion was quite a bit closer to the 2 extant markers<br/>
<br/>
Acc. to <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; the map and my own experience, there is no boundary marker <br/>
&gt; (anymore??). Strange for such a significant corner in the boundary.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>yes<br/>
well about how far was that from 286<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; &quot;(...)lilu couldnt have changed course when belu was made in 1843 <br/>
&gt; because lilu was until then actually nlpr <br/>
&gt; & even until 1921 was still bede before it came into being as lilu <br/>
&gt; (...)&quot;<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; No, but after 1921, I mean. When it wasn&#39;t an international <br/>
 </span></blockquote>boundary <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; anymore.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>right<br/>
but any idea why or how or when it might have been changed<br/>
<br/>
such a minuscule adjustment seems most peculiar to me<br/>
<br/>
anyway fantastic sport we are inventing<br/>
<br/>
m</div>