Re: GPS Ghost Town Coordinates
From: Don B (buroker_at_charter.net)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: jtw: "Re: GPS : Basic pseudo-distance computation"
- Previous message: Dave M: "Re: FS: iQue 3600"
- In reply to: dold_at_XReXXGPSXG.usenet.us.com: "Re: GPS Ghost Town Coordinates"
- Next in thread: dold_at_XReXXGPSXG.usenet.us.com: "Re: GPS Ghost Town Coordinates"
- Reply: dold_at_XReXXGPSXG.usenet.us.com: "Re: GPS Ghost Town Coordinates"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:09:55 -0600
dold@XReXXGPSXG.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Don B <buroker@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>It looks to me like someone is playing with words, the rest of the quote
>>read "So, a ghost town is not historical, only abandoned". What the hell
>>is a ghost town if it's not an abandoned? If you want to argue, argue
>>with them.
>
>
> I think "abandoned" is what someone thinks of when they picture a ghost
> town. Buildings and whatnot are still there. I presume that "historical"
> means there is no trace of whatever gave this waypoint its name, other than
> the fact that the GPS coordinate is still a usable navigation element.
>
Again I say, argue with them, there are towns listed at
http://www.ghosttowns.com that have standing buildings and are also
listed on the USGS website.
- Next message: jtw: "Re: GPS : Basic pseudo-distance computation"
- Previous message: Dave M: "Re: FS: iQue 3600"
- In reply to: dold_at_XReXXGPSXG.usenet.us.com: "Re: GPS Ghost Town Coordinates"
- Next in thread: dold_at_XReXXGPSXG.usenet.us.com: "Re: GPS Ghost Town Coordinates"
- Reply: dold_at_XReXXGPSXG.usenet.us.com: "Re: GPS Ghost Town Coordinates"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|