I suspect we haven't been totally rigorous in our assignments even using the current wording of the connection .
My original question had to do with this remark. It wasn't 100% clear to me what the defining characteristic of the Swamp connection was, as it also includes areas which are more marshlike by definition. Also the definition I found about the tree vegetation was not the one I read in the introduction of the Swamp connection.
So the intent of my question was to come to a more correct categorisation: by being more rigorous (by applying a stricter definition) or broader (by including marshes).
As I said, it came from my reading of the Getbol Nom file, where salt marshes are mentioned. But these salt marshes, as those in the Wadden Sea, are definitely not Swamps, yet I was left wondering if they would fall under the category since other marshlike habitats had already been included (e.g. Everglades or Colchic Rainforest).
I would suggest that we limit such connections to sites where the word appears in the Nomination File and/or AB evaluation?
For clarity, I would include this condition: the word "swamp" or "marsh" (or related words like "bog" or "mire") need to be mentioned in the official description (OUV) or the AB Evaluation. Do we also include the Nomination file?
I would suggest that, pro tem, we include ALL marshes (both fresh and salt) and see what we get. It follows the logic for "Swamp" where we are not differentiating between fresh or salt swamp.
I would also include the salt marshes, as we do not differentiate between freshwater and salt water swamps either.
But Jurre has opened a can of worms by bringing up this subject....
I'm sorry to have been that person. :-D
But I wanted some more clarity for myself, especially since I'm not an expert on the matter. That's why I think the mention of the words in the official description or the AB Ev might be a good way to determine which WHS fall under this category.
In any case, it brought about an interesting conversation. :-)