--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
<smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Jesper Nielsen"
<jesniel@i...>
> wrote:
> > Two topomaps
> >
> > 1) byltlv-pre1991
> > Old Russian map, BYLT border goes NE towards TP
> >
> > 2) byltlv10000
> > Present map, BYLT slightly NW towards TP
> >
> > I don't know if this is due to poor mapping. The BYs seems to
want
> to
> > control the border.
> >
> > Jesper
>
>
> I don't know either what is going on here, but it might just be
the
> result of demarcating the border after 1991. Internal SU
boundaries
> were normally not demarcated, or at least that is what I
understood
> from reading about the subject. The second map has the
tripoint
> marker, with its name in three languages, very clearly located
on the
> tripoint. I guess that this is the actual tripoint, agreed on by all
> parties.
>
> The draft agreement on the tripoint (16 March 1998) is at
> http://pravo2000.by.ru/baza10/d09210.htm . I will translate part
of
> it:
>
> Article 1.
> 1. The point where the state boundaries of the Republic of
> Belorussia, the Latvian Republic, and the Lithuanian Republic
meet,
> hereafter called boundary meeting point, is situated north-west
of
> Ljudvinovo lake and has the following co-ordinates, graphically
> defined:
> In the co-ordinates system of 1942: 554050,66 N and
263756,85 E;
> In the Latvian co-ordinates system of 1992 (LKS - 92):
554050,17 N
> and 263749,79 E;
> In the Lithuanian co-ordinates system of 1994 (LKS - 94):
554050,17 N
> and 263749,79 E.
> 2. The location of the boundary meeting point is shown on the
Map of
> the Boundary Meeting Point of the Republic of Belorussia,
Latvian
> Republic, and Lithuanian Republic, Scale 1:10000, which is
added to
> this Agreement and forms an inalienable part of it.
>
> Article 2.
> 1. The Parties will put up a special boundary marker
"Ljudvinovo" to
> mark the boundary meeting point.
> 2. The boundary marker "Ljudvinovo" is made up of four
elements: a
> central geodetical marker, placed on the boundary meeting
point, and
> three four-sided columns.
> Every column of the boundary marker "Ljudvinovo" will have on
the
> side that faces the boundary meeting point a coat-of-arms, the
name
> of the state and of the boundary marker "Ljudvinovo". The
> inscriptions will be in the language of the state on which
territory
> the column is situated.
> The co-ordinates of all elements of the said marker will be
> established instrumentally.
>
> Article 3.
> 1. In order to establish the location of the boundary meeting
point
> in the field, the Parties will istruct their plenipotentiary organs
> for the demarcation of the state boundary to work out a project
for
> the boundary marker "Ljudvinovo", to put up the marker, and to
> prepare a Protocol of the Boundary Marker "Ljudvinovo" and a
Map of
> Demarcation of the Meeting Point of the State Boundaries of
the
> Republic of Belorussia, the Latvian Republic, and the
Lithuanian
> Republic, to be added to the Protocol.
> 2. The documents mentioned in point 1 of this article consist of
six
> copies, each in Belorussian, Latvian, and Lithuanian, and will
be
> part of the set of documents on the demarcation of the
Belorussian-
> Latvian, Belorussian-Lithuanian, and Latvian-Lithuanian state
> boundaries.
>
> (...)
>
>
>
> Peter S.
ok then that appears to bust our surmise that the 6x6m framed
square of everyones land enclosing all 4 of the mentioned
elements might be some kind of a legal tridominium
as contemplated & seriously entertained following jans original
report in message 3696
instead what the square area appears to be is just
the project
as worked out per article 3 above
& any universality inhering in this area appears still to be purely
sentimental & symbolic
& tho this little quasi triarea has a practical purpose too in
facilitating visitation of the tripoint
as we have seen
there does not appear to be any actual multidominium here yet
also there really is no discernible difference in the byltlv position
depicted in jespers 2 map swatches above
ref message 9496
but only in the general alignment of the bylt boundary
the 5x difference in scale may be misleading
the tripoint position per se
does not appear to have ever been displaced
but only refined & zeroed in upon by the demarcation process