Considering the new connection "US national monuments" I am now returning to our previous discussion regarding national connections. We used to have: owned by the national trust (UK), located in state capitals (Mexico), most beautiful villages of France and mots beautiful villages of Italy. We also agreed that if we open the door to national connections there might be too many of these national connections.
Maybe we should take Solivagant's old proposal to abstract away and internationalise them:
1) located in state capitals (for federations and autonomies),
2) owned by a charity,
3) located in a national park/monument.
This would allow to give further information, for example on the nature of the park, but still not confine us to arbitrary national divisions.
To take (1) as an example:
Wiki lists the following countries as federations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_state#List_of_constituents_by_federation
omitting those missing any WHS:
Argentina, Austria, BH, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, Switzerland, USA, Venezuela, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, St Kitts and Nevis, UAE as well as Spain de facto.
Additionally, the following countries (excluding those of the first list and those with no WHS) have autonomous areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autonomous_areas_by_country
Azerbaijan, Chile, China, DR Congo, Fiji, France, Georgia, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Mauritius, Moldova, Nicaragua, Panama, PNG, Philippines, Portugal, Serbia, South Korea, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uk and Uzbekistan.
Should we allow for a connection "located in the capital of a member state or an autonomous area"? I am not sure this is an absurd idea. I would estimate the number of sites on such a connection at about 30-50 which is less than we have in many other connections. For Germany for example we would only have Potsdam and Bremen and for Argentina none.