reconsidering also the remark in message 6439 about there also being
4 small auxiliary belu markers at nearby road intersections
& seeing the nearest one of these possibly well depicted in eefs
recent map swatch not on the north shoulder of the road where i was
expecting it but on the south shoulder
i must admit that eefs & peters case for the road centerline keeps
looking better
or else old belu began by crossing the road twice in its first 2 tiny
segments
like a chicken without its head
from 75 to 286 to auxiliary marker 1
for that is how bad my case is looking now
or the map is wrong
& we could test these 3 probabilities further by looking for the next
3 auxiliary markers on that map
if we could see a larger swatch of it
m
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "ps1966nl" <smaardijk
> > OK, I should have written "I am happy to accept the solution as
> given
> > by this topomap UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES THIS WRONG. A treaty text
> > naturally trumps any old topomap, of course.
>
> yes yes
> shouts of joy here too
>
> > "(...)there is a common custom in europe of marking midstream
(...)"
> >
> > Yes indeed. This looks like a very real possibility to me.
>
> ok i value it higher in that case
>
> > "(...)a weird adaptation of that wet line method to a dry
roadstead
> > (...)"
> >
> > Not so weird, given the dusty nature of unsurfaced roads like
they
> > would have been in the days these boundaries were drawn. Disks or
> > metal plates are not very practical in those conditions.
>
> right & the american style of marker crypt embedded within the road
> is still unreported from anywhere in europe or anywhere else in the
> world
> so you really may have a point here about it being an unmarked or
> indirectly marked tripoint
> especially if the road predates the belu partition
>
> but where else in europe have we seen a road centerline boundary
> strong deja vu
> didnt mats report a possible instance of this some time ago
>
> > "(...)the map shows a probability of it [PS: the third marker, if
> > there was any] lying east of 286 rather than of 75 (...)"
> >
> > Maybe at the point where the provincial boundary turns north.
>
> good chance i think
> that would make it both the initial marker of lilu & its first
> turnstone tho not its initial point
>
> but didnt the text you translated indicate this missing third
> companion was quite a bit closer to the 2 extant markers
>
> Acc. to
> > the map and my own experience, there is no boundary marker
> > (anymore??). Strange for such a significant corner in the
boundary.
>
> yes
> well about how far was that from 286
>
> > "(...)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
> > (...)"
> >
> > No, but after 1921, I mean. When it wasn't an international
> boundary
> > anymore.
>
> right
> but any idea why or how or when it might have been changed
>
> such a minuscule adjustment seems most peculiar to me
>
> anyway fantastic sport we are inventing
>
> m