map puzzle
william h. grenert
There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
Islands don't count.
Bill Grenert
Lee Shere
Or, which of the contiguous 48 states contains the most
northern point? Lee
David Filpus P145
In article <DpAMw...@granite.mv.net>, "william h. grenert" <wgre...@bb.mv.com> writes:
|>
|>
|>
|> There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
|> 48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
|> Islands don't count.
|>
|>
|> Bill Grenert
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>
If I remember right:
The northernmost tip of Minnesota is surrounded by Lake of the Woods
and Canada.
There is a piece of the state of Washington that juts south into
the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Canadian side of the 49th
parallel.
--
Dave Filpus | Opinions in this post are my own
NORTEL | and do not reflect those
RTP, NC | of NORTEL Public Carrier Networks
dfi...@bnr.ca |
Tom Maciukenas
>"william h. grenert" <wgre...@bb.mv.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
>> Islands don't count.
>>
>>
>> Bill Grenert
>>
>Or, which of the contiguous 48 states contains the most
>northern point? Lee
>
Well, the Xerox PARC www map ( http://mapweb.parc.xerox.com/ )
shows three little bits of Canada that jut down across the border
into bodies of water. One is in the northwest corner of Washington,
another is in northern Minnesota, and the third is in northwest Vermont.
It also shows a thin section of riverbank on the Rio Grande in
Texas/Mexico, but that could be an inaccuracy in the map.
-tOmm
Jim Waters
On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, william h. grenert wrote:
>
> There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
> 48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
> Islands don't count.
>
> Bill Grenert
>
Does that mean that the WHOLE STATE OF HAWAII doesn't count!? Oh well, I
know that Point Roberts in Washington State (a penninsula of B.C. Canada
which extends into the U.S. border) is one of them.
-- Jim Waters (jwa...@az.com)
william h. grenert
I would say that Minn has the most nothern spot.
Admiral Jota
>
> There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
>48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
> Islands don't count.
How about any American Embassy? There must be quite a few of those, and I
believe they're officially a part of America (and not the country they're
located in).
--
/<-= -=-=- -= Admiral Jota =- -=-=- =->\
__/><-=- http://www.tiac.net/users/jota/ =-><\__
\><-= jo...@mv.mv.com -- Finger for PGP =-></
\<-=- -= -=- -= -==- =- -=- =- -=->/
Neal Plotkin
to...@dvorak.amd.com writes:
>Well, the Xerox PARC www map ( http://mapweb.parc.xerox.com/ )
>shows three little bits of Canada that jut down across the border
>into bodies of water. One is in the northwest corner of Washington,
>another is in northern Minnesota, and the third is in northwest Vermont.
The piece of VT dipping into Lake Champlain isn't directly attached to
the rest of the US by land, but is attached by bridges. So, unlike Pt
Roberts or Lake of the Woods, you can drive or walk from this part of VT
to the main part of VT (or to NY) without going through Canada (or
getting wet).
Neal Plotkin nplo...@umich.edu (313)747-4088
University of Michigan Law School
313 Hutchins Hall
Ann Arbor MI 48109-1215
Dave Seaman
william h. grenert <wgre...@bb.mv.com> wrote:
> There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
>48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
> Islands don't count.
I think this one has been answered, but here is a harder question that
I posted several years ago.
Several states, such as Hawaii and Michigan, appear disconnected on the
map, but turn out to be connected if you include their water areas. In
other words, you can travel to all parts of the state without leaving
the state, but you may not be able to do it without getting wet.
I can think of at least two states that are completely disconnected.
Now matter how you travel (by boat, by air, by swimming, etc.) there is
a part of the state that you cannot reach without travelling through
some neighboring state.
Embassies don't count; they are not a part of any state. The northern
tip of Minnesota doesn't count, because you can swim or take a boat
across the lake or perhaps walk on the ice. Islands don't count,
unless you can show that all of the surrounding waters belong to some
different state or states.
As I said, I know of two states that have this property of geographical
disconnectedness, but it is conceivable there might be others.
--
Dave Seaman
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++
++++ see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
indy
> There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
>48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
> Islands don't count.
Hmmm. They must not be Long Island, The Virgin Islands, or the Keys
since they are all surrounded by water. The US has a base station in
Antartica. Could this be part of the US?
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
. | Indy : Indianapolis, Indiana (((in surround-sound))) |
. | E-mail : indy1...@iquest.net |
. | World Wide Web : http://www.iquest.net/~indy1cache/hideaway.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Steve Sosensky
>In article <DpAMw...@granite.mv.net>, "william h. grenert" <wgre...@bb.mv.com> writes:
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|> There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
>|> 48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
>|> Islands don't count.
>|>
>|>
>|> Bill Grenert
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|>
>Spoiler Space
If the real question is 3 places in the continental US that are not
connected to the Lower 48 but are still in North America, I'd say the
US Embasies in Ottawa and Mexico City.
>If I remember right:
>The northernmost tip of Minnesota is surrounded by Lake of the Woods
>and Canada.
>There is a piece of the state of Washington that juts south into
>the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Canadian side of the 49th
>parallel.
>--
>Dave Filpus | Opinions in this post are my own
>NORTEL | and do not reflect those
>RTP, NC | of NORTEL Public Carrier Networks
>dfi...@bnr.ca |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sosensky | |^^^^^|/ | 10834 Blix Street #213
photographer | | |\ | Toluca Lake, CA 91602
ste...@loop.com | ^^T^^ | 818-508-4946
http://www.loop.com/~steves | / \ | 34:09:02 N, 118:22:47 W
| / \ |
Courtenay Footman
>It also shows a thin section of riverbank on the Rio Grande in
>Texas/Mexico, but that could be an inaccuracy in the map.
This may be the result of oddities in International Law. The border
between the US and Mexico is the midpoint of the Rio Grande. However,
the river continually changes its course. When this happens naturally,
the border between the US and Mexico changes, following the new course
of the river. However, if the river changes course because of an act of
man, then the border does _not_ change. At least once, someone made a
cut that diverted the Rio Grande -- at that point, the border follows the
old course of the river, which is now dry land.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
David Moews
Dave Seaman <a...@seaman.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>I can think of at least two states that are completely disconnected.
>a part of the state that you cannot reach without travelling through
>some neighboring state.
In the South state boundaries often meander back and forth across the
Mississippi. Looking at my atlas:
1. Just south of New Madrid, MO, there is a bit of Kentucky that fulfills
your conditions; it shares a land boundary with Tennessee and a water boundary
with Missouri.
2. Just west of Greenville, MS, there is a bit of Mississippi that may
fulfill your conditions, but the state boundaries are not given in enough
detail for me to be sure.
--
David Moews dmo...@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu
John Hascall
}I can think of at least two states that are completely disconnected.
}a part of the state that you cannot reach without travelling through
}some neighboring state.
}Embassies don't count; they are not a part of any state. The northern
}tip of Minnesota doesn't count, because you can swim or take a boat
}across the lake or perhaps walk on the ice. Islands don't count,
}unless you can show that all of the surrounding waters belong to some
}different state or states.
}
}As I said, I know of two states that have this property of geographical
}disconnectedness, but it is conceivable there might be others.
I believe Carter Lake, Iowa is completely surrounded by
Nebraska (Omaha and the Nebraska half of the Missouri).
John
--
John Hascall ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Moderator, comp.unix.wizards
Systems Software Engineer, ISU Comp Center + Ames, IA 50011 + 515/294-9551
<a href="http://www.cc.iastate.edu/staff/systems/john/">My Homepage</a>
william h. grenert
resend or read this Minn and wash yes. Mich. ??? There is another in
northern Vermont. Sorry for the SNAFU
Bill Grenert
Gerry Leacock
>48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
> Islands don't count.
obscure little speck north of Washington state. Right?
Gerry L.
''~``
( o o )
+--oooO--(_)--Oooo-------------------------------------------+
| Gerry Leacock - ger...@cyberspc.mb.ca |
| At the corner of "Walk" and "Don't Walk" |
| oooO Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada |
| ( ) Oooo http://www.cyberspc.mb.ca/~gerryl |
+---\ (-----( )--------------------------------------------+
\_) ) /
(_/
Dave Seaman
David Moews <dmo...@xraysgi.ims.uconn.edu> wrote:
>In the South state boundaries often meander back and forth across the
>Mississippi. Looking at my atlas:
>
>1. Just south of New Madrid, MO, there is a bit of Kentucky that fulfills
>your conditions; it shares a land boundary with Tennessee and a water boundary
>with Missouri.
Yes, correct. Kentucky has two separate components, the smaller one
being completely surrounded by Tennessee and Missouri.
>2. Just west of Greenville, MS, there is a bit of Mississippi that may
>fulfill your conditions, but the state boundaries are not given in enough
>detail for me to be sure.
I don't think so. The boundary between Mississippi and Arkansas is
rather complicated at that point, but using my DeLorme Street Atlas
CD-ROM, I was able to zoom in at high enough magnification to trace all
the loops in the boundary.
There is another example I had in mind, involving a state with three
separate components. This is much less obscure than the Kentucky
example, since the site has been visited by large numbers of people.
Julie Waters
>> There are three places in the US that are not connected to the lower
>>48.( Alaska is one) the others are a bit smaller. Can you find them?
>> Islands don't count.
>
>The upper penisula of Michigan.
No. It is anchored quite clearly to Wisconsin. Sheesh. You'd think we
were Hawaii or something. Well, with more snow :-)
--Julie
--
ju...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu http://drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu/~julie
Dave Seaman
John Hascall <jo...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> I believe Carter Lake, Iowa is completely surrounded by
> Nebraska (Omaha and the Nebraska half of the Missouri).
My CD-ROM atlas clearly shows that there is a single boundary here. It
mostly follows the center of the Missouri, but at one point it departs
from the present course of the river and loops around an area where the
river evidently once flowed, enclosing a small region of Iowa between
the present and former courses of the river.
My map shows no bridges at that point, but since you can reach this
area from the main part of Iowa without leaving the state (perhaps by
boat or by hang glider), it doesn't meet the criterion of geographic
disconnectedness.
The place I have in mind that hasn't been mentioned yet has most likely
been visited by some of the people reading this thread.