upvote
My current favorite boundary dispute is between California and Nevada.

California entered the union in 1850 and it's north-eastern boundary was defined a specific way(120 degrees west of Greenwich), Nevada entered 14 years later and it's western boundary was defined with a different method(43 degrees west of Washington), at the time it was thought these two methods were equivalent, but this was later proved otherwise. It appears the main strip got resolved but there is still a weird triangular strip of land on the diagonal claimed by both sides. There were also a number of surveying mistakes, but the root of the problem appears to be the accepted but incompatible definitions. It turns out that congress has no authority to change state borders once they are set(Somehow this both surprised me and made total sense at the same time), so the states themselves have to resolve it. There is currently an "agreement" on how to interpret the border, but neither state has changed it's constitution so the dispute is still technically ongoing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Tahoe#Interstate_boundary...

reply
Reading the constitutions of both states in order to pin down exactly where the problem is, the Wikipedia article is sort of vague. The Nevada document specifically references "thence in a North Westerly direction along the Eastern boundary line of the State of California to the forty-third degree of Longitude West from Washington" So that is not the problem, the border is whatever California says it is. It must be a north-south strip in the difference between "the forty-third degree of Longitude West from Washington" and "Running south on the line of said 120th degree of West Longitude"

The latest California constitution just says to reference the original 1849 for the boundaries https://archives.cdn.sos.ca.gov/pdf/1849-california-constitu...

Nevada https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html#Art14 amended in 1982, but the original 1864 document has the same geographic description with a different starting point for some reason.

The funny thing I found in the Nevada constitution was

"All territory lying West of and adjoining the boundary line herein prescribed, which the State of California may relinquish to the Territory or State of Nevada, shall thereupon be embraced within and constitute a part of this State."

We reluctantly agree to your existing borders, but we really wanted the Sierra Nevada ridgeline to be the border and if you want to give it to us we are going to put it right in the constitution to accept it.

reply
Wait, so it was actually believed that the Washington meridian just happened to fall exactly on an integer number of degrees (120-43 =77) west of Greenwich?
reply
It is close, and if you consider Washington as a district there is a meridian exactly 77 degrees west somewhere in there. But I am here eyeballing maps and if the "Washington meridian" is considered the point of the capital it is ~ 1000 feet west of -77.0, should have chosen Stanton park. Seeing as Washington was a planned city I wonder if the capitol point was supposed to be -77.0 west but limitations in surveying accuracy put it where it is. A thousand foot error is not bad for 1800. In fact the very public line at Greenwich is off by ~ 50 feet.

On the subject of eyeballing maps are there any online openstreetmap derivatives that have better cartography tools? (crosshair, lat long at specific point, distance and bearing lines, etc) I probably could install qgis for it, and osmand has a bunch of these tools. but the default osm page sort of sucks here.

reply
Presumably defined rather than just happened, but not surveyed exactly enough. The US Capitol building is at 77.009°W.
reply
As an excellent example of #2 we've got Bir Tawil and the Halaib Triangle - both exist along the Sudanese-Egyptian border. Two different historical border drawings have been presented which each argue that the Halaib Triangle belongs to a different country and the triangle has 27k inhabitants. Funnily enough, each map that yields that valuable chunk of land to each country actually yields that Bir Tawil should be possessed by the other country (and Bir Tawil is comparatively worthless). As a result neither country claims Bir Tawil since it could be seen as an admission that the other country has a rightful claim to Halaib Triangle.

Usually these weird chunks of land that lay unclaimed are usually the result of agreements or contests around more valuable chunks of land that cause voids in the border - sometimes just due to historical oversight.

reply
deleted
reply