Re: BE-DE: Smallest Vennbahn enclave

brendan 
thanx for thinking of us with all these puzzling data
but when you ask 
is it useful or interesting
i have to wonder with you
useful or interesting for what

also 
since i dont yet see your multipointing try in all
this effort
i dont understand your annoyance
naturally
nor why you bring it to us here for that matter
tho i can well appreciate that you cant be bothered

indeed learning to be unable to be bothered is perhaps
our primary adventure & highest value here
so thanx for this reminder of it

but as i realize i may well have missed your point
please do explain further 
if you wish 
what indeed is the use & interest & point of all this
anyway
if not having fun in the making of a point

--- Brendan Whyte <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have uploaded to the files area an Excel
> spreadsheet with the 
> measurement data for the smallest Vennbahn enclave.
> Basically it is a series of measurements showing the
> turning points 
> of the real boundary.
> These are given as deviations of the boundary from
> an imaginary 
> straight line joining adjacent boundary pillars.
> Measuring from one 
> stone to the next, the perpendicular deviation from
> this line is 
> given (y-coordinate) at each turning point, along
> with the 
> corresponding distance along the imaginary line
> (x.coordinate).
> For each of the 4 sides of the enclave, this data is
> graphed to show 
> how the boundary wiggles between pillars.
> 
> I have also calculated:
> the length of the imaginary lines between pillars,
> the actual boundary length between pillars
> the % difference between these two, and
> the interior angles between these imaginary lines.
> 
> 
> Note however that there are some inconsistencies in
> the data, which 
> has been taken from the official boundary atlas,
> published in 1922 by 
> the Boundary Commission itself.
> 
> There appear to be some contradictions between
> figures: a straight 
> line distance between two pillars, #756 & #757, for
> example, is given 
> as both 155.51m and 155.45m in the Atlas. I have
> used the latter 
> figure in my calculations. It does not make a
> significant difference 
> to the results, either lengths or angles, but it is
> annoying, and I 
> cannot understand how either figure can relate to a
> different 
> measurement. This seems to occur in several places
> in the atlas two 
> figures being given for what seems to be the same
> measurement. I 
> cannot explain it.
> 
> I also have a small right-angled triangle that
> connects the midpoint 
> of the boundary between stones 756 & 759 to a German
> survey control 
> point, as having a hypotenuse of either 19.32m (in
> the Atlas) or 
> 19.2563m (from my own calculation involving the
> atlas figures for the 
> other two sides). Again I cannot see how the Atlas
> figure can apply 
> to any other length depicted in the atlas). I have
> used my own figure 
> in the ensuing calculations.
> 
> Thirdly, one angle given as 133deg 54.3min is
> clearly wrong in the 
> atlas. the correct figure should be 226deg 6.3min.
> But as this is 
> almost exactly the complementary angle, I can see
> how the mistake 
> might have been made in this case. I have used the
> corrected figure.
> 
> Let me know if this file is useful/interesting.
> 
> I could add in calculations for the area of the
> enclave, but can't be 
> bothered right now!
> 
> 
> 
> Brendan
> 
> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/