yes capital ray thanx
& indeed please kindly send us any further
clarification you would
since it appears you really & authoritatively can do
so
bravo
like the pertinent swatch of your referenced usgovt
map if possible
for the google earth border depiction you seem to be
commending
please see my new & more detailed attachment
for other commercial imagery which you seem to equally
favor
please see such as expedia etc
i would guess
http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll
where the search term baekdu would soon get you there
but this latter border depiction differs by & large
from google earth
while it agrees with your belly buttoned friends
& also with toms original map attachment
& since these above 2 versions do disagree with each
other
i can safely be incredulous of at least 1
but frankly i am a bit dubious of them both
your news of the fresh demarcation tho is quite
stunning
especially after i doubted the validity of the
spanking new marker claim
which is pinned at google earth at about n41d59m24s x
e128d6m3s
in case you would like to feast your eyes on it too
the position is marked by the blue dot roughly midway
between the red dots on my attachment
but you would have to click on the actual blue dot at
google earth to see the pic
no telling if it is correctly placed just there by the
photographer tho
as it too does not agree with the google earth border
depiction
in fact i have found these blue photo dots are usually
just as unreliable in their placements as are the
notoriously crude google earth yellow border
depictions themselves
ps
also delightfully stunning
even if it is a distraction from the present chase
is your apparent confirmation of the cnkp river condos
of which we have only had fragmentary reports til now
& thus your substantiation of our long hanging
suspicion that cnkpru is in fact a triline rather than
only a simple tripoint
so many thanxxx but especially if you can elucidate
further on baekdu
--- "Milefsky, Ray J" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Aletheia et al:
>
> Several years ago at an IBRU workshop, Martin,
> Helèné Bray (UN Cartographic Unit) and I
> belly-buttoned representatives from the Boundaries
> Division of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on their
> border with North Korea. They confirmed two things
> we had been seeing on maps from both countries: 1)
> an overlapping boundary in the Yalu and Tumen rivers
> (sovereignty extending to the opposite shoreline,
> with fluvial islands retaining one-state
> sovereignty) based on a secret (read: not currently
> public) bilateral agreement, and 2) the boundary
> running north from a site near the source of the
> Yalu up Mount Paektu, across the crater lake, and
> down from the mountain and east to connect near the
> source of the Tumen. Commercial imagery (Google
> Earth) shows the latter clear-cut section very well.
>
>
> The referemced IBS No. 17 is a vintage document
> (1962). The Department of State issued it to
> confirm that it was sticking with the status quo,
> namely the Republic of China depiction, which
> claimed the entire mountain. The IBS line was drawn
> from Japanese occupation maps of China and Korea
> that we acquired after the Second World War. At the
> time we had no bilateral evidence that the line had
> been changed by two entities with whom we had no
> diplomatic relations (Communist China and North
> Korea). South Koreans, on the other hand have
> claimed all of "sacred" Mount Paektu and were
> pressuring us to use their depiction. Today, we
> know that the two adjoining states have agreed to,
> mapped, and actually demarcated the Mount Paektu
> portion of the boundary. This is what we now show
> on U.S. Government maps. The 1713 monument is
> franky today a moot issue.
>
> Hope this clarifies,
> Ray
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: International boundaries discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> aletheia kallos
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 7:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Baekdu-san boundary
>
> thanx for the delicious query tom
>
> there does not appear to be any real substantiation
> available for the boundary in the lake that you are
> showing in your attachment
>
> rather it is my semieducated guess that the longtime
> dispute detailed here by the ibs
>
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS017.pdf
> & illustrated with a sketch map on the final page
> has continued more or less quietly up the present
> with the last known shots having been fired in 1997
> yet without any further settlement so far as i could
> discern
>
> so
> an agreement to disagree perhaps
> & not disrupt the considerable flow of tourism to
> the area
>
> moreover the location of the defining 1713 monument
> purportedly near the summit point & upon the yalu &
> tumen watershed divide has not been publicly
> confirmed so far as i know & may not even have been
> recovered in modern times
>
> but because the songhua watershed also converges
> upon the summit from the northeast & cannot be in
> korea at all because the delimitation is entirely
> between the yalu & tumen watersheds there appears to
> be a roughly 4360 meter gap between the mountain
> summit & the top of the tumen wastershed at the
> watershed trijunction point pretty much as shown in
> my satpic attachment
>
> of course if the 1713 monument is ever recovered it
> may trump the actual watershed divide but failing
> that i would suggest running the boundary line not
> across the lake at all nor even thru the exact
> summit point as did the ibs but rather only along
> the actual yalu & tumen watershed divide & thus thru
> the watershed trijunction point i have approximately
> determined & shown
>
> from this point you can see on the satpic the yalu
> system shedding southward & the tumen shedding east
> & southeast & the songhua northeast
>
> at the same time i also have to report
> there is a photo of a very modern looking marker
> that is said to be a boundary stone & is pinned at
> google earth near the midpoint of the aforementioned
> gap
>
> but whether this really is what & where it claims to
> be i rather doubt tho i suppose it could be an
> unreported replacement for the 1713 rock among other
> possibilities
>
> so circumspection regarding all the above may be
> warranted
>
> but i hope it may help you anyway
> as it was great fun searching
>
> --- "Tom Edwards (Englobe)" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm looking for clarification on the China-North
> Korea boundary
> > section around the mountain Baekdu-san and lake
> Chon-ji. The attached
> > image shows what I understand the boundary to be -
> bisecting Chon-ji
> > with the Baekdu-san peak on the Korean side of the
> boundary. Note that
> > this disagrees with data sources such as the
> Digital Chart of the
> > World (which is of course dated).
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm hoping to find confirmation that the boundary
> depicted in the
> > attached image is in fact the true boundary as it
> currently is shown.
> > Thanks in advance for any assistance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Edwards
> >
> > Principal Consultant & Founder
> >
> > Englobe Inc.
> >
> > <http://www.englobe.com/> http://www.englobe.com
> >
> > T: 1.425.444.7370
> >
> > F: 1.425.663.7986
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
|
