Subject: Re: VTNYQC - been done?<br/>
Date: Nov 12, 2002 @ 13:15<br/>
Author: Meridien24 (&quot;Meridien24&quot; &lt;meridien24@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="7875.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="7888.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic7860.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="7881.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="7883.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1300590311">Agggh!  my head hurts!  Interesting indeed that the USGS has the <br/>
VTNW/NYNE point NORTH of the markers!  As long as all agree that the <br/>
international boundary draws a straight line between 644 and 645a, we <br/>
can dismiss that data...<br/>
<br/>
I don&#39;t have my software here, but I could just find the exact <br/>
coordinates of the point (using topo data) and track it GPS.  I just <br/>
hope I don&#39;t fall in -- I can swim, but I don&#39;t wanna lose the GPS!  <br/>
My wife will be along to take a picture & call authorities if I fall <br/>
in (but, WHICH authorities?)<br/>
<br/>
I&#39;ll share my computer&#39;s finding of the point for all to argue when I <br/>
get to it... which won&#39;t be till later today - I&#39;m leaving for <br/>
Montreal right after work.  Any help/arguments are appreciated - I <br/>
never thought that FINDING the point would be a problem!<br/>
<br/>
Locals will argue with you, but it IS the Richelieu river at that <br/>
point.  The topo map agrees.  Concretely - it means that it would <br/>
take a darn good freeze for it to be safe near the point, but it DOES <br/>
happen.  I have childhood memories of people skating up and down the <br/>
river...<br/>
<br/>
Otherwise, marker 644 would likely be the best vantage point?  (and <br/>
yes, I&#39;ll bring back a picture of the actual marker, too)<br/>
<br/>
...Still have about 3 months to figure this out, anyway<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
--Jay Di Battista<br/>
  Plattsburgh, NY<br/>
  WPTZ-TV<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@o...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; yes a beer for me too<br/>
&gt; but because 645a is more than a second south of 644<br/>
&gt; i find it hard to visualize so much northering as you see<br/>
&gt; & certainly not in the middle of the lake<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;bjbutlerus&quot; &lt;bjbutler@b...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; The great circle through both monuments would intersect the <br/>
&gt; middle of<br/>
&gt; &gt; the lake north of both monuments, perhaps reconciling the <br/>
&gt; USGS given<br/>
&gt; &gt; position with your average, Mike.  My spherical trigonometry is <br/>
&gt; too<br/>
&gt; &gt; rusty to yield a quick answer.  Anybody else?<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; By the way, I&#39;m rooting for some beer to go with all that ice.<br/>
&gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; BJB<br/>
&gt; &gt;  <br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; such an averaging will produce a tripoint position of<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; nad27 45d00m38s3775 x 73d20m40s036<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; which tho probably unreliable beyond tenths of a second<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; still seems far more credible than the usgs positioning<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; which incidentally has the additional defect <br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; of placing the tripoint north of both monuments<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; yikes<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; for how could that be true<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; <br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; while neither position is terribly punctilious<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; they both still afford target areas of about 10 foot circles<br/>
&gt; &gt; &gt; whose centers are more than 100 feet apart </span></blockquote></div>