• Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    This is why setting borders based on rivers is fundamentally flawed.

    This message brought to you by the latitude/longitude gang.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean, you say that now, but if someone stood on the other side of the river and shot arrows at you, would you really disagree with them?

      • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Such a stupid border decision. They should have fixed it in the territory swaps a few years ago.

        • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          They should just secede from the union and be a small city state.

          Would it benefit anyone? No. Would it be very costly to make the transition and potentially wreak havoc on the community? Absolutely. But would it create a sense of civic pride and feel good for the residents of Point Roberts? Also no.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          What territory swaps a few years ago?

          It’s also too late now, even if you come to a political agreement you’d have to buy them out, have to hear about unseating American families, and I doubt Canada is willing to do that. What’s the point for that insignificant land?

          • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            A while ago (late 90s?) they straightened the border and reevaluated land along the 49th parallel. Some towns switched countries.

      • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Because they change and move over time. This river definitely didn’t start out like this and it almost certainly will look very different in just a few years’ time.

        • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Just recently my country exchanged land with a neighbouring country to adjust for the changes of water, each giving and gaining the same amount of land. When water marks the border it’s much easier to know when you’re crossing it.

          Edit: looked it up: in march we (Austria) traded 239 m² with Liechtenstein

          • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Good point, that’s a cool solution too!

            I know they’re rich, but they’re so small, you should have just let them keep it.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      The alternative is pretty fucking stupid too. Imagine losing access to your freshwater because the river shifted across an imaginary line. At least when the border is the river, you always have access to the river.