top | item 42859370 (no title) jmilloy | 1 year ago I think borders based on watersheds make so much more sense than those on rivers, both of which are common. discuss order hn newest NegativeLatency|1 year ago Either seem better than arbitrary lines unknown|1 year ago [deleted] emmelaich|1 year ago Harder to find though. londons_explore|1 year ago The big bit of a river is easy to find, sure.But up near the source where it splits into thousands of small tributaries which move and change a lot? That's a recipe for boundary disputes.Whereas a watershed rarely changes far, even on geological timescales.
emmelaich|1 year ago Harder to find though. londons_explore|1 year ago The big bit of a river is easy to find, sure.But up near the source where it splits into thousands of small tributaries which move and change a lot? That's a recipe for boundary disputes.Whereas a watershed rarely changes far, even on geological timescales.
londons_explore|1 year ago The big bit of a river is easy to find, sure.But up near the source where it splits into thousands of small tributaries which move and change a lot? That's a recipe for boundary disputes.Whereas a watershed rarely changes far, even on geological timescales.
NegativeLatency|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
emmelaich|1 year ago
londons_explore|1 year ago
But up near the source where it splits into thousands of small tributaries which move and change a lot? That's a recipe for boundary disputes.
Whereas a watershed rarely changes far, even on geological timescales.