Talk:Four corners (Canada)

Not a Four Corners?

Are you sure that Canada has a "Four Corners"? Have a look at that "spot" with mapquest.com. You can zoom right in on it. See what I mean?

No, I'm not sure what you mean. I looked at Mapquest and it doesnt' show any gap; there appears to be a four corners spot.

http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&rmm=1&un=m&cl=EN&ct=NA&rsres=1&1ffi=&1l=&1g=&1pl=&1v=&1n=&2ffi=&2l=&2g=&2pl=&2v=&2n=&1pn=&1a=&1c=Miami&1s=FL&1z=&2pn=&2a=&2c=Flin+FLon&2s=MB&2z=&r=f (Please pardon the strange title of (driving directions from Miami to Flin Flon). I wanted a zoomed out map and don't know of any towns in the area.) By definition, the corner is at the intersection of 60°00′00″ North and 102°00′00″ West. It doesn't even make sense that such an offset would exist. The area is remote, so there are no towns to consider when creating the borders. The area is not of strategic imporantance either, so there's no reason why one territory or province would be "given" a little bit of extra land. I'm deleting this erroneous "did you know" from the article unless someone has a source. Ufwuct 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just linked the coordinates. Of the 2 maps available from the coordinates that show the boundries, Mapquest shows no offset but Google maps do when you click on hybrid. However the external link to the Government of Canada's map shows no offset. You need to zoom in to see it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

MSN Maps also shows this as an exact four-corners[1]. But as CambridgeBayWeather noted, Google Maps dows show an offset [2]. It would be interesting to find out what source material Google Maps used. Most likely, there are arguments on both sides as to whether there actually ought to be an offset or not. The reason has to do with differing geodetic systems. The current Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary was set by the Manitoba Boundaries Extension Act (1881) [3] and the Saskatchewan Act (1905) [4], in terms of "road allowances" and so forth. That boundary really could not be exactly the same as what a GPS unit would today identify as 102° W longitude, because GPS uses the WGS84 geodetic system, which is standard today but had not yet been developed in 1881 or 1905. The obelisk referred to in the article is apparently at 59º59'59.6"N 102º00'22.3"W under the NAD27 reference [5], which converts to 60º00'00"N 102º00'25"W under WGS84 [6]. In other words it is about 25 seconds of longitude west of the 102nd meridian under the WGS84 datum, a distance of approximately 387 metres [7]. The Nunavut Act (1993) defined the western boundary of Nunavut as commencing at precisely 60°00'N 102°00'W (presumably according to WGS84 although that doesn't seem to be specified expressly). However, it goes on to describe that point as "being the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders" [8]. --Mathew5000 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The google map now has no offset [9]. I have transplanted a statement of doubt from the quadripoint article as it belongs here more than there. jnestorius^(talk) 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The NRC's "Canadian Geopolitical Boundaries - CANADA" page ([10]) defines a clear offset. Should we reword the article to clarify that this is not actually a quadripoint? Jkshapiro (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. That's just a map, not a legal definition. The law is unclear, so it's right to say that it's possibly a quadripoint. Bazonka (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not known by the proper name and should not be the title this whack of ongoing original research, likewise Quadripoint which is a neologism propagating itself via Wikipedia; and is ultimately WP:TRIVIA. Aside from that if it's only possibly a "quadripoint" (and it's not, those maps are derived from legal land surveys which are the boundaries; the legal definitions are not boundaries, they are prescriptions only and if there are different legal definitions varying between provinces and/or the federal government, "Houston, we have a problem".

That no genuine third-party source other than sites made by "quadripoint enthusiasts" uses this name, and it does not appear on maps, the title is not a proper name. About boundaries vs legislation, this is why the 49th Parallel boundary isn't exactly on the 49th Parallel; but the terms of the treaty, as with other legislation, only establish the survey lines; the line physically surveyed IS the boundary, not what the treaty (=legislation, effectively) says. Same with the Alaska boundary with NW BC and SW YT; it's the surveyed monuments that define it, not the documentation.

To me this article and its title are pure WP:Original research as well as TRIVIA-based wiki-fiction. Other long-time editors have commented in the past, given failed AfDs to delete it, and the Quadripoint article, that it gives people something to do to keep them away from creating serious content, or messing with same.

Whatever, I'm not going to try and AfD it again, but just observing that the original research and now entirely speculative nature of this non-place ("possibly a quadripoint", asserted without any understanding of the legalities just explained above, notwithstanding the OR-fiction "quadripoint" itself) in no way justifies the use of caps as if it were a proper name and widely-known. It's not, it was created by a few individuals and its now-world presence is due entirely to Wikipedia, and the speculative geo-fiction continues and continues and continues.

It's not called Four Corners by any one by its theorists, and it's just geotrivia; as are all the multipoints proliferating on the Quadripoint article; a topology of theoretical line-intersections spanning the planet as a date-mapping hobby; not a valid subject for an encyclopedia, and not of any relevance in the real world no more than its title is not part of the Canadian vernacular nor has any penetration in the public mindset save through Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "possibly a quadripoint", either it is, or it isn't. Jkshapiro, I've reverted you. 117Avenue (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it either is or isn't, but as others have pointed out (and as is noted in the article) this depends on the results of the survey. Therefore "possibly". The problem with the reverted wording of "theoretically" is that it implies there's no practical way to determine the matter. Jkshapiro (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

...by the writer, which would original research. I see your point. 117Avenue (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Nunavut ?

Could this not be merged with Nunavut? There is not very much new information in this stub that wasn't already in the main Nunavut article that linked to this entry. Dunro 17:25, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

It takes four jurisdictions to make four corners. Nunavut is only one. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This only became a quadripoint when the boundary of Nunavut was established, less than twenty years ago. 173.77.96.171 (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

category

Does Wikipedia have a category for tripoints and quadripoints? Or even a list of them? Tripoint does not even seem to be a real article. --Mathew5000 02:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only contains the basic information on the subject, and of low importance, as I do not feel that this topic is essential for understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

More info

Here's some additional info that can help clear up some of the discussion.. Also, I have just come back from this location, so if you have any questions, let me know and I can probably add more color: "Although both the Nunavut Act and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement state the intersection of 60°00'N latitude and 102°00'W longitude as the boundary between Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories, the actual, legal boundary point is marked by a survey monument boundary marker placed by the Manitoba Saskatchewan Boundary Commission in 1962.[27] According to Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division, that monument's precise location is 59°59′57.98511″N 102°0′27.24027″W (NAD83), or about 400 metres (1,300 ft) west and slightly south of 60°N by 102°W." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.160.135 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this survey? Five decimal places on the second is very precise, and cannot be achieved with a hand held GPS. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadripoint#cite_note-nunavut-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadripoint#cite_note-28

"Canadian Spatial Reference System Online Database, Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division. GSD LONG Report for: "MON 157 (name), 674002 (unique number)" (online database requires free registration)."

I was just there and can tell you that 60 x 102 was in the middle of nowhere with no markers (i.e. accurate location of the intersection of the 2 provinces + 2 territories per most maps), but the obelisk/marker was Definitely not there.. it was closer to the coordinates specified by the Canadian Spatial Reference/Natural Resources Canada/Geodetic Survey Division: 59°59′57.98511″N 102°0′27.24027″W (NAD83), about 400m west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlugassy (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Added. Do you mind releasing an image of the obelisk? You can follow the instructions at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. 117Avenue (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just uploaded one (have plenty more..:)

It's at:

Add caption here

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:4_Corners,_Canada,_Obelisk.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlugassy (talk • contribs) 07:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Added, thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Manitoba Saskatchewan border

Whether there is an exact quadripoint or a surveying error was discussed above. However, as someone suggested, the Manitoba Saskatchewan border maybe is not meant to be at exactly 102°W. I am finding quite a few sources saying exactly this. Geography of Saskatchewan#Physical geography says so without a reference I can make sense of.[11] This and this hint at it, this shows it (you'll have to zoom in) and this says it. None of these references is fully satisfactory but I'll keep looking. Even if the "four corners" is not exact (but out by a few hundred metres) the article is still worth having and the anomaly worth discussing if it can be done with reference to reliable sources, Thincat (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The error between the survey practices back then compared to what we now use for latitude (the international border isn't exactly 49°) and longitude is a well known fact, and common knowledge in the surveying world. I know this is OR, but all you have to do is drive to the nearest meridian (Range Road 10), and look at your GPS. 117Avenue (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The border is as surveyed, and enabling legislation prescribing a meridian is only a guideline (haven't seen a quote of the MB-SK border description or an NT-NU border description). AS with the BC borders with WA and AK, the actual physical lines and surveyed monuments do not match with the 49th Parallel in the one case, or any fixed "line" though the peak-to-peak survey in the latter case was where those specific points are; what I'm saying is that it's not the theoretical line that's the boundary, but the boundary as surveyed. Which is why there's a hundred yards or so of WA that should be in BC in the Lower Mainland area; divergence easts of the Rockies means the Americans came out better in total acreage "gained".....this so-called "quadripoint" is fictional, as is the name and subject of this article, which IMO should be deleted as "original research" which it most definitely is, in many ways.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Date and years

This image shows 1959 and 7 years in jail. I emailed the lodge to see if they can send us an image of the top of the marker. I assume the 59 was stamped in at time of placement so 1962 and five years in jail would be wrong in the article. 1962 may have been the estimated completion time of the project and they had all the obelisks stamped with that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What an interesting photo. The "five years" comes from a rather bloggy source (and I guess it could be wrong) but it claims to quote exactly what is inscribed on the obelisk itself including "1962" and the photo of the obelisk confirms 1962.[12][13] The article strictly does not say the obelisk was erected in 1962 but says it is "inscribed to say it was erected in 1962". I remember writing that bit,[14] knowing that pedants would be scrutinising every key press for OR. The new photo you have uploaded indicates Manitoba on one side and NWT on the other (which by my OR suggests Nunavut now). I think the legend could be re-written "A 1959 survey marker indicating the boundary of Manitoba and Northwest Territories near Hasbala Lake." Thincat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added 5 more images to the commons category. There are two markers close to each other and both are in the article now. When the photographer goes to the obelisk again he may send us a picture of the top of it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of this article and the lead

I would be happy to rename the article "four corners" or "Four corners" (including the quotes in the title) since that seems to be the common name, probably with (Canada) appended to disambiguate from Four Corners. My reasoning is that that is what the several sources seem to call the place.

In many ways I'd be happier if the lead, instead of saying "where four political subdivisions hypothetically meet" said "where four political subdivisions come close together or meet" except no-one seems to have found a source saying anything like that. The sources seem to say (possibly wrongly) that the boundaries cross. The article should not be (and isn't) claiming a precise quadripoint (or that it is not one). Do we know if this particular location on the NU-NWT boundary has been surveyed yet? If not, and from what I understand from earlier discussion the 102° is something of a guideline, until the surveyors have reported we cannot know the situation. If this part of the survey is complete, it is a great pity none of us seem to know the result. Of course, piecing together the various evidence seems to show no exact crossing but without a reliable source reaching that conclusion, we may not claim it in the article.

Finally I have just noticed that, back in 2009, material was copied from here[15] to quadripoint hence the admonition near the top of this talk page. Thincat (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell via googling, the NWT-NU boundary surveys so far have concentrated on areas near settlements and those near mineral claims. Pfly (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Must not be very much surveyed then.......well, the diamond claims get pretty extensive I guess......no diamonds near the 60th Parallel and the SK/MB boundary yet, but if it comes down to NT/NU/SK/MB squabbling over whose jurisdiction gets royalties, it'll get surveyed and darned fast LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Since some believe that the title is original research, I was thinking something like the "Borders of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut", or "Intersection of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut borders". But that's a long title. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am okay with "four corners" with quotes and no caps. Are we sure that we didn't create the label though? Some RS use this term but may have taken it from us. We could still join the four surveyor forums that I brought up in the AfD. We could let them neverendum it and then get back to us. They would be the world experts on it I assume. They may have valuable input to improve the article as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The title should be Four corners (Canada), without quotes. Four Corners is not the proper name for this place, so we should use a descriptive name. There are four corners (whether they all meet at the same point or not...), so it is an accurate description, and it reflects the obvious parallel with the Four Corners in the US (which is a proper name). Per WP:TITLEFORMAT we should not use quotes or a capital C, but the initial F should be a capital. Bazonka (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. Pfly (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Having started this bit of the discussion I forgot all about it but I am happy with the result. It hadn't actually occurred to me that there are four corners whether or not they all come together! As for the initial capital letter that is WP's way of doing titles except under highly unusual circumstances. I think the geometrical uncertainty adds to the interest but that is a matter strictly for the talk page. Thincat (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Distance

I made File:Geodatata for Sask Man NWT and Nan.png and pixel counting in GIMP works out to 386.5m. Do we have an accurate number for what it should be?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's close to the "about 400 m" I calculated some years back. I got that number by dropping the two coordinates (60°00'N 102°00'W and 59°59′57.98511″N 102°00′27.24027″W) into some online distance calculator, perhaps the measure tool in Google Earth. Your map is interesting, but I'm not sure about its ultimate accuracy. It comes from OpenStreetMap, yes? OSM is a Wikipedia-like source, in which anyone can make edits. I haven't used it in a long time but have an editing account, so I went in and tried to determine who entered those boundaries and what their source was. I'm not very good with OSM, but it seems that all the boundaries in that area say their source is "geobase", meaning, I assume, GeoBase (geospatial data). As our article on GeoBase says, when it comes to geopolitical boundaries, "This data layer contains the international, inter-provincial, and territorial boundaries, as well as the boundaries of Canada’s exclusive economic zone. It is not intended for legal use, and should be utilized for cartographic purposes only." And, for what it's worth, neither of the coordinates on your OSM map are the same as those given by Natural Resources Canada, CSRS Online Database, station number 674002 (MON 157) (Established by : Legal Survey Of Canada - Nrcan), which I just checked again (register/login here [16]) and got the same coordinates already on our page here: N59° 59' 57.98511", W102° 00' 27.24027" (NAD83). To convert between decimal and DMS coordinates I use [17], which for the survey monument gives 59.99944,-102.007567. Inputing the CSRS coordinate and 60.0N102.0W into [18] gives 424.9870362099465 m. All that said, "about 400 m" seems good to me! Pfly (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, the high-res topo maps of Canada (NRCan made) appear to still be available online via "mytopo.com", this link [19] should show the MT-SK-NWT "tripoint" marked with a survey monument symbol and the number "157". There are no topo maps at this scale just to the east, including where the NU-NWT boundary is shown on smaller scale ("lower res") topo maps. I'm not sure why that is. The topo cutoff is marked "District of Mackenzie", a pre-Nunavut name whose boundary was along 102°00'W, although never surveyed on the ground. It seems the District of Mackenzie/Nunavut was never mapped with topo maps at this scale. Pfly (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you go to the link I got the map image from there are more maps there that may help. That was the only CC-by one that we can license at commons though. My dad was a surveyor for highways. He said there should be a marker ever square mile in Canada. He may have only been talking about south of 60 though. Sites like http://www.waymarking.com/ seem to enjoy finding and posting pictures of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting an exact distance is possible through converting the coordinates to UTM. The toolserver includes this function (59°59′57.98511″N 102°00′27.24027″W, 60°00′00.00000″N 102°00′00.00001″W). Simple Pythagorean theorem will tell you it is 427m. Topo maps do exist east of 102°, the topoquest link, also found through the toolserver, has them. However can only show one side of 102° at a time, because of how the National Topographic System divides its map sheets. 117Avenue (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we know where the two Survey markers are on my map? Readers may wish to know where the two markers are in relation to 102°, 60°, and the actual two border lines. If the one is damaged then the government may pop up and fix it if I complain through email that 'Borders are very important and this marker should be verified as accurate or someone could lose an eye.' If we suck up the minister they may even take some photos for us. My lightest camera is still to heavy for Kite aerial photography or I would take a trip up and try some shots myself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Have you not read the article? An obelisk marks the point where the Manitoba–Saskatchewan border meets the Northwest Territories, at 59°59′57.98511″N 102°00′27.24027″W (NAD83), 427m west of 60°N 102°W. The Northwest Territories–Nunavut border is unmarked, and is either at 102°W or 102°00′27.24″W. 117Avenue (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just wondering where our 4 - 6 points are in relation to each other. We have legal borders that don't match 102/60, we have two markers that were placed, and we have true 102/60. I assume that the markers are at the legal border limits. Is the N/S marker precisely on 60 and where is it E/W? There should be a government account of where it was last found which may vary slightly from where they thought it was when it was placed. If we can find at least these two points then we should be able to create a diagram from the data. 102/60 we don't really need from OSM since it is simple trig. We just need to place our two markers as last found in relation to those two trig lines. This will give the readers some nice eye candy so they can actually 'see' where they are. Without the last surveyed locations of two more markers we shouldn't draw the legal borders in though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "we have two markers that were placed". There is the obelisk at N59° 59' 57.98511", W102° 00' 27.24027" (NAD83), placed before the creation of Nunavut and marking the tripoint of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and NWT. What other marker is of concern? Pfly (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The N/S only one not far from it. See the image in the article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering you are the one who uploaded it, wouldn't you be the one to know? 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967, do you mean the picture of the disc, "marking Manitoba's north border, east of the obelisk"? I'm not even sure why that picture is on this page. There are hundreds of survey markers along the provincial boundaries. Is that one special? I can get its coordinates from the CSRS Online Database if you'd like, although even if it is closer to 60°00'N 102°00'W I'm not sure how it would matter... Pfly (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

But, in case it does matter and I'm confused, the next survey marker along Manitoba's northern boundary, east of the tripoint obelisk, is, according to Natural Resources Canada, CSRS Online Database, station number 674004 (MON 1) (Established by : Legal Survey Of Canada - Nrcan), N59° 59' 58.01195", W101° 59' 49.04294" (NAD83). Thus 179.895 metres from 60°00'N 102°00'W. So, closer to 60-102 than the tripoint obelisk. Maybe that is what you were getting at? If NRCan decides to use 60N,102W they will end up making a new tripoint located a bit closer to the disc marker than the obelisk (and slightly south of 60.0 N, presumably)—which would also mean there is no true quadripoint or "four corners". Of course if they decide to use the existing tripoint obelisk, making a true quadripoint, then the disc marker is irrelevent, right? Pfly (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The lodge owner that sent me the other images said that one is near the obelisk. I am not sure if is exactly on 60, in 1959 they didn't have GPS so it is doubtful that it is. I don't think he has sent permissions to OTRS so the other shots may be deleted if he has changed his mind about licencing them. He should be back up there by now and was willing to take a picture of the top of the obelisk disk for us. I may yet email the government survey ministry and see if they can provide images and more info on how they plan to survey. Eventually they may decide on a true quadripoint and then we can discuss the article title again. There is a way to lower case the F in four that we may yet decide to do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We should not change the F to lower case. The initial character of an article name should only be lower case in the special situations where the name always starts lower case - and this only really applies to companies and band names etc., for example k.d. lang and eBay. "Four corners" would have a capital F if it is used at the start of a sentence. Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

New images

I uploaded pics of the top of the obelisk, since that seemed of interest.. I have many more pics of the area if needed..sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot since I'm still a little newbie to wikipedia..:) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disk_on_top_of_Obelisk_at_4_Corners_Canada_1.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disk_on_top_of_Obelisk_at_4_Corners_Canada_2.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlugassy (talk • contribs) 06:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures. It is fine to post here on the talk page. I will get them in the category over at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corners/quadripoint

I don't like the revisions that Jkshapiro has made. Removing "four corners meet" and "four corners are located", and adding "potential four corners", "If it does, then this creates a Canadian four corners", and "potential four corners". I think Jkshapiro has confused "four corners" with quadripoint. There is no question there are four corners, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut (four) all have corners; this fact is what kept the article at the four corners name. What is unclear is if there is a quadripoint. Quadripoint is what should be described as "might" and "potential". Jkshapiro's current sentence with the bolded article title name, "If it does, then this creates a Canadian four corners", implies that the name of this article is original research, which has been disputed in the past. 117Avenue (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)