--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "anton_zeilinger
<anton_zeilinger@h...>" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
> 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!
Yes, that must be it, I agree. The straight line across land is then
reduced to be merely auxiliary for the straight line across water
(i.e. the maritime boundary).
[....]
> > 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
Sometimes these old "allocational boundaries" get promoted to
maritime ones. RUUS springs to mind here (with all the difficulties
that followed the adoption of the old 1867 line here).
> >
> > 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!
Congratulations from me, too.
Peter S.