1. Four pointer
    I have a paperback version of The Hammond World Atlas (1989) which was a gift with a Newsweek subscription, and which has large scale maps of each of the
    Jan 02, 2006 @ 09:44 - Roger McCutcheon ("Roger McCutcheon" <rogerdwmac@...>)
  2. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    reading you loud & clear roger thanx & would only add since i neglected to mention chant realty was a most prominent sign yesterday on route 2006
    Jan 02, 2006 @ 16:37 - aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
  3. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    but if wikipedia can be believed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners_Monument then the quadripoint depiction remained unchanged & unrenovated as recently
    Jan 02, 2006 @ 18:24 - aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
  4. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    If you will go to http://tinyurl.com/cstge (page four of the eight-page PDF) and to http://tinyurl.com/c2fjj , you can read about the groundbreaking ceremony
    Jan 02, 2006 @ 22:54 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <lgm@...>)
  5. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    aha & what fun for it now seems clear they werent really breaking the ground there at all but only ceremonially rearranging the sand in an imported sandbox
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 01:42 - aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
  6. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    Great fun - I wish though that when writeups such as the Wikipedia one give Lat and Long they would say what reference datum they are using. Without that
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 03:19 - Hugh Wallis ("Hugh Wallis" <hugh@...>)
  7. Re: Four pointer
    thanx & good point tho in cases like these where the technical savvy of the source cant be taken for granted i think you just have to guess they mean nad83 on
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 06:44 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  8. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    The latitude of that particular point was presumably intended at the time to be dead on 37 degrees North, but when I zoom in as closely as possible on the
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 07:02 - Roger McCutcheon ("Roger McCutcheon" <rogerdwmac@...>)
  9. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    As I can see you cannot trust Google Earth 100% when it comes to positions and borders. 0 doesn t even hit Greenwich Observatory
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 08:33 - jesniel@image.dk (jesniel@...)
  10. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    I went to maximum magnification on Google Earth and found that it did indeed show zero longitude as being about three quarters of the way to the far side of
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 11:20 - Roger McCutcheon ("Roger McCutcheon" <rogerdwmac@...>)
  11. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Four pointer
    Take a look here where the difference between WGS84 and various other observations is documented at various locations along the prime meridian
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 21:07 - Hugh Wallis ("Hugh Wallis" <hugh@...>)
  12. ok but why or what are we looking for

    Jan 03, 2006 @ 21:45 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  13. RE: [BoundaryPoint] ok but why or what are we looking for
    Each entry made records the actual WGS84 coordinates displayed on a GPSr device that is positioned at a physical marker which is marking the Prime Meridian.
    Jan 03, 2006 @ 22:00 - Hugh Wallis ("Hugh Wallis" <hugh@...>)
  14. Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    ok thanx i get it but i am also still trying to figure out if there is anything useful for trypointing in these conversations that is somehow still eluding me
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 02:19 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  15. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    If you recall the start of this thread (which has change titles a few times now) it was the Lat and Long information provided for the US state quadripoint
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 03:29 - Hugh Wallis ("Hugh Wallis" <hugh@...>)
  16. Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    indeed it might be loveliest if these conversations inspired someone to recall to mind or more likely & even better yet to create for the first time ever such
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 03:33 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  17. Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    i agree eglysd being unmarked would have been another good point to try this hit or miss experiment upon which i have just described in a crossing post for
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 03:48 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
  18. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    I d like to comment on this. Even at the present state of the art, you cannot expect a hand held GPS to get you to an exact set of coordinates. It will get
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 04:08 - Jack Parsell ("Jack Parsell" <jparsell@...>)
  19. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    exactly my point jack thanx & i think either datum would do it there at idmtwy today too ... __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL –
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 04:17 - aletheia kallos (aletheia kallos <aletheiak@...>)
  20. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    I think we are in somewhat violent agreement. But, as I mentioned, some datums (e.g. Tokyo datum) can be up to 200m off from WGS84 which could put you too far
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 04:38 - Hugh Wallis ("Hugh Wallis" <hugh@...>)
  21. Re: ok but why or what are we looking for
    violent what hahaha all you need to dispel the misconception that datum doesnt matter is to actually & preferably nonviolently find a tripoint where the datum
    Jan 04, 2006 @ 05:45 - aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)