I've added this connection this weekend, but what is the definition of a 'continental border'? Which sites are in or out?
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/tags/tag.php?id=1293

I think we should best use the geographical definition according to which Uvs Nuur should be out as it is located in Central Asia only. If on the other hand, we use the Unesco geopolitical clusters (Europe-North America, Caribbean-Latin America, Asia-Pacific ...) Uvs Nuur would be in (as well as El Pinacate, Battir or Armenian sites in Iran), but Iceland should be out.

So, maybe two connections are needed: one with natural boundaries and another with the political boundaries of continents.

Depending on whether Mesoamerica is included in N. America, as is often done, there are a few possibilities for sites on the N.A./S.A. border.

I usually include everything through Panama in the North, so Darien N.P/Los Katios N.P. would be on the boundary.

I would say it makes sense to have two connections: one geographical and one for the Unesco zones.

For the geographical: Darien, Los Katios, Willemstad (South/North America), Komodo and Bali (Asia/Oceania), Saint Catharina, Soqotra, Zabid, Jeddah, Sanganeb (Asia/Africa), Bagrati, Gobustan, Baku, Mtskheta (Europe/Asia), Troy, Ephesos, Samos, Patmos and Rhodes (Europe/Asia), Gough (Africa/South America), Ogasawara (Oceania/Asia). Uvs Nuur should be out (Central Asia).

For the Unesco zones (excluding "colonies"): El Panacate, San Antonio, Everglades (Europe-NAmerica/LatAmerica-Car), Aksum, Zabid (Arab/Africa), Gibraltar, Masada, Beth Guvrin, Tells, Petra (Eu-NAmer/Arab), Armenia monasteries, Uvs Nuur, Golden Altai, Altai petroglyphs (Europe-NAmerica/Asia-Pacific), Susa, Tchogha Zanbil, Shushtar (Arab/Asia-Pacific)

Possibly even three connections, the two that you mentioned, plus "Located on/near a Tectonic Plate boundary"

Here is a graphic of the major plates: wikimedia

Many sites are obviously at boundaries; Iceland, Cartagena, Nazca, Ujung Kulon NP, etc. This connection can be rather noteworthy, since any site at a major plate boundary is at increased risk of seismic damage.

If we would create this Connection, it would better be titled something like "Near a continental border" (personally I don't find that particularly interesting). Actually few WHS span a continental border, whether geographical or political. Istanbul is the only one? And Uvs Nuur is the only on attached to two Unesco continents.

We need to think of good definitions, that really add value. What link do Samos or Jeddah have with 'the issue' of continents?

I'll also say that the sites near political continental boundaries doesn't do much for me. Sites like El Pinicate or Samos are are only there as sort of technicality of a current political border.

Incidentally the Istanbul WHS is solely in Europe, the boundaries are actually quite limited.

I think the ones that straddle (rather than are near) geographical boundaries are of interest though. Thingvellir is the one that comes to mind, and the watershed in the Darien Mountains Is seen as the separation between North and South America.I am not fully up on the Himalayan sites but would any of them qualify?

We also have the transboundary Le Corbusier, but still only two of them.


The Himalayan sites are all in Asia. Le Corbusier is across georgraphic continents. If included we would have three to make a connection.


This could be an interesting connection too.

I am afraid I find all these "continental boundary" Connections (Political, Geographical and Geological ]i.e "Tectonic") very problematic since they depend on a range of subjective factors.

The first 2 (Political and Geographic) require the adoption of one or other "definitional conventions" from among several equally valid and accepted ones. Where does Europe end and Asia begin? Are N and S America separate continents and if so where do they start and end? How for instance, as we have it at the moment, can both Virgin Komi and Uvs Nuur represent the boundary between Europe and Asia? That mixes "definitional conventions" and would seem to leave the whole of NE Russia north of Mongolia and east of the Urals outside both Europe and Asia! Including Thingvellir seems to mix geological and geographic definitions within the same Connection. In what way is Gorham's cave "on the boundary" between Africa and Europe - that "boundary" runs out to sea in terms of political and geographic definitions. How "close" to the conventional "boundary" chosen does a WHS have to be in order to be "connected" (ie does it have to "straddle" it or just be "near" it) .....Etc etc......

In the case of "Geological" boundaries as per Plate Tectonics do we (or even the "science of Plate Tectonics") know enough? I speak as merely an interested outsider on the science - maybe some other Forum posters know more than I and can enlighten us! But my understanding is that the idea of a boundary in the form of a simple line on a map only works at a very high level - what really exist are "Boundary Zones". If one looks for the actual "place" where one plate joins or dives under another one is usually going to have to look in the Ocean - so, just because a plate is called the "Nazca Plate", doesn't mean that the WHS of Nazca is on its boundary. The definition of "Plates" is itself an issue - what about "Microplates" such as Galapagos and Easter? As I understand the latest theories Gibraltar for instance isn't on either the African or the European plate but on a micro plate consisting of the Rif mountains and S Spain which has been "pushed up" between the 2 from the previous sea bed.
We could certainly list all sites "somewhere" near (how "near"?) the beautifully straight and clear lines on a high level map of the major plate boundaries - but would that tell us much? How "close" to the line do we stay - Lisbon for instance? Yet its earthquake was directly related to the Azores/Gibraltar Fault - I quote from Wiki on this "boundary " - "the Azores–Gibraltar Transform Fault, also called the Azores–Gibraltar fault zone (AGFZ), is a major fault zone which runs eastward from the eastern end of the Terceira Rift in the Azores, extending through the Strait of Gibraltar and into the Mediterranean Sea. It forms part of the tectonic boundary between the Eurasian Plate and the African Plate. The extension east of the Strait of Gibraltar is poorly understood and is currently regarded as a "diffuse" boundary. Many geologists believe the fault connects with a subduction zone where the African Plate is slowly subducting beneath the Eurasian Plate somewhere in the vicinity of the Italian Peninsula."
We will face many more of these issues which neither we nor, in many cases, Plate Tectonic scientists, really understand.

Re: political
The political definition should probably follow the division between Unesco blocks. The definition regarding the boundary is therefore easily determined. The only two sites spanning over more than a single Unesco zone are Le Corbusier and Uvs Nuur. Once a third one is nominated, we could have a connection there.
Re: geographic
Here I wholeheartedly concur that several equally viable definitions render any such division somewhat arbitrary. We could define such a connection as such that has a site spanning over more than one continent according to one of the conventional definitions. Komi Forests, Darien and Le Corbusier would fit such a connection. Thingvellir and the Maltese sites maybe too.