Hi!
> i imagine they were considered in the sense that certain points
> upon their perimeters were designated as turn points
> & i imagine they were ignored in the sense that a maritime
> boundary is then evidently allowed to perform the absurdity of
> cutting straight across dry land
> without distributing that land between the parties
> but only the waters surrounding that land
YES! I think that's the solution! Great! As you say, only the
surrounding water is divided by the boundary whereas when it crosses
land, it becomes meaningless in the way that land is NOT divided,
only the surrounding water!
> so i think our great discovery here is that it is neither a land
> boundary nor a coastal boundary but a metaboundary
> & such a creation may be unique in the word
>
> how exciting
>
Yes, absolutely unique and fascinating. I like the expression
metaboundary, that's what it is!
> or at least i have never seen such weird doubletalk about things
> being both considered & ignored in any other boundary treaty
>
> not to say there isnt any such
> & please anyone sock it to me who can
>
> but anyway
> if something that looks like a land boundary in one light & like a
> coastal boundary in another light
> but isnt really either one
> is hard to imagine
> then just think of it as a wet&dry reversal of one of those old
> allocational boundaries for divvying up islands
> long before the days of eez boundaries etc
> & which still appear on many maps of the pacific as various fairly
> regular polygons
> but which are actually meaningless as water boundaries
>
> well here it is just the opposite
>
> a dry line that is meaningless for divvying up dry land & that only
> has meaning in relation to the surrounding maritime territory
>
> very weird & possibly unique but thats my new guess
>
thx, and congrats on this guess, I think that's how it goes!
Greetings,
Anton
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "anton_zeilinger
> <anton_zeilinger@h...>" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I have now posted the map in the Photo section of BP. Hope
> you can
> > see it now!
> >
> > Apparently, two of the turning points (a.k.a. "virtual" border
> > markers) of the maritime boundary are actually islands of our
> famous
> > Ile Verte group.
> >
> > I would say that a land border cafr is highly probable, since the
> map
> > and the treaty suggest that the direct line between the turning
> > points would touch and probably even cross at least part of the
> > shore/beach of these two tiny islets!
> >
> > AntonZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002
> <orc@o...>"
> > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > wish i could see this map
> > >
> > > can anyone describe or retransmit the pertinent area
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "anton_zeilinger
> > > <anton_zeilinger@h...>" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > There is now a map and the 1974 agreement on cafr
> available
> > > on the
> > > > webpage of the Florida State Law School:
> > > >
> > > > Map here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/ls57
> > > .php
> > > >
> > > > agreement here:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/ls057.pdf
> > > >
> > > > One of the turning points is located at the low-water mark
> on
> > > the
> > > > west point of the south-westernmost island of the Little
> Green
> > > Island
> > > > group, "which is Canadian" (!). (see page 8)
> > > >
> > > > Another passage says: "Islands were both considered and
> > > ignored as
> > > > locational factors in the boundary delimination."
> > > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > AntonZ