Very true. I was focused on the 12 Apostles connection, but that is something you might propose for the connection for St. Paul.

Should gardens that employ pumps also be included? If so, I would suggest adding Versailles to the list.

A quick look at two other gardens--Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe and Peterhof, part of the Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments--indicates that they operated on natural water pressure rather than pumps, so I don't think they would be eligible.

Whilst searching for Pumping stations I looked in more detail than before at the Erzegebirge Nomination file. This has enabled me to "complete" a Connection suggestion which I have been trying to do for some time!!

Underground Boundaries
WHS whose core underground boundaries extend beyond those at ground level.

There are 2 ways in which "underground" elements of WHS can be defined in terms of boundaries at surface level and this Connection identifies examples of the second. The first has been the more "normal" approach for sites with underground elements (E.g Cultural sites such as Blaenavon, Wieliczka, Goslar, Qanats and Natural ones such as Geomunoreum Lava Tube System)
a. The inscribed surface boundaries totally "encompass" the inscribed underground areas beneath them - either exactly or by covering a still wider area.
b. The underground areas extend beyond the surface boundaries such that the land above the inscribed areas is not a part of the inscribed site core area (though it may be a part of a buffer zone). Thus it is possible to stand somewhere at ground level OUTSIDE the WHS whilst land some distance underneath is INSIDE the inscribed core boundary.

Erzgebirge
Beyond the boundaries of the inscribed surface areas there are numerous underground elements some of which are not even included in the surface buffer zone. See the Nom File Maps which show dotted lines for "Nominated property underground" extending way beyond any inscribed overground zone. E.g the entire element of Dippoldiswalde Mediaeval Silver Mine (1-DE) and the Freiberg location (4-DE). The Nomination file states - "On the Saxon side, in some cases, for linear elements a standardised buffer zone between 5 and 10 meters in width was determined. Structures located underground were only allocated with a buffer zone when these are reflected by function-specific installations or archaeological remains above ground. Otherwise, above ground (construction) measures will have no effect on these mostly very deep-lying structures."
Champagne Hillsides, Houses and Cellars
The UNESCO Maps of Reims and Epernay show the inscribed areas as pink for overground and a blue line for underground (The "Caves"). The latter sometimes extend beyond the former – but are always within the buffer zone (Orange)
Tarnowskie Gory
See UNESCO Map with solid lines for "Surface Nominated property" and dotted lines, extending way beyond these, for "Underground Nominated property (Protected at surface)". (It is not clear whether this "protected at surface" means that the surface is an "official" (UNESCO) buffer zone)

Interesting indeed - here is a description of the enormous pumping etc system required to keep the pumps going - well worth knowing.
I see no problem with having Garden pumps within this Connection - if there are still remains of the "pumping station"/pump house/pump engine etc etc. But in the case of Versailles it seems that there are not. I think that, in all the other cases proposed, there are tangible remains of the pumping mechanism within the WHS. It might be said that the fountains themselves are such evidence but they already have thier own "Fountains Connection and this is supposed to be for "Pumping stations".

Hi Caspar - I presume you were referring to this Forum comment I posted in Nov 2018??? I don't think it "led anywhere" at the time did it Els??
There still seems to be a problem re including all Hindu Lingams? Not "special" enough??
And differentiating it from the Erotic Art Connection.
Also - should we include WHS where Phallic symbols were found or only those where they still are on show? The Pasupati seal is not of course "on show"! We could do so but I suspect that we would also have to include every Greek and Roman archaeological site!!

Here is the link for convenience .
So what is the proposal Caspar??
a. The Art Nouveau (a.k.a "Modernismo" in Spanish) Connection already has Mexico's Palacio de Bellas Artes included
b. Re Tarraco. There is I guess an issue if a site is titled "The Archaeological ensemble of ..." to include a 20thC item in the Connection but If the mausoleum you refer to is inside the inscribed zone and meets the definition of "Art Nouveau" then propose it and it can be considered. Unfortunately the Art Nouveau Connection has absolutely NO definition!! @ELS - perhaps one should be added covering the wider "definition" of Art Nouveau to cover a range of architectural styles of the period with different names across the World. I might also suggest that any building to be included should "contribute to the site's OUV". BUT - if you included that then the Tarraco example would get EXcluded??
c. Less of an issue re the Camino since Gaudi's "Palacio Episcopal" at Astorga clearly "contributes" to the Camino's OUV and should be added?? A "nice" addition!!

Added it!

Indeed, too common and hard to define

Definition added. I'd rather have "significant buildings in the Art Nouveau style" rather than "contribute to the site's OUV" (the OUV could be about town planning, while the town center has a really nice Art Nouveau building)

Added both

Yes, the Marly Machine was pretty impressive, and that's a great article for explanation of the cost and effort to get water to Versailles. What I was referring to, though, are pumps that took water from the bottom of the Grand Canal back uphill to a reservoir to be recycled and used again in Versailles. In the past this was done by windmill- and horse-driven pumps, but now they have been replaced by modern pumps.

So the discussion about pumps and the recent news about the flooding in Venice reminded me about my visit to Ayutthaya in the fall of 2012, where pumps were in use to help drain water from around some of the temples (whether this was leftover from the historic floods of 2011 or was from rains in 2012, I can't say). I noticed we have a connection for Protective engineering works against flooding. Do these engineering works have to be within the core zone, or does this apply to any sites with engineering works specifically constructed to protect the core zone, while not necessarily in the core zone? I ask, since Ayutthaya does have flood defense walls and water gates, though I am uncertain whether any of these fall within the core zone.

Have added it, it seems close enough at least and is there to protect the archaeological site.
Will need to revisit the connection definition; in general connections only apply to features inside the core zone but here we could add that they were made to protect the core zone.

Maybe I'm missing it somewhere in the connections lists, but do we have a connection for World Heritage Sites that contain architecture by a Pritzker Prize-winning architect? Off the top of my head, I can think of a few sites that could be included:

Brasilia: Includes many buildings such as the National Congress of Brazil and the Cathedral of Brasilia designed by architect Oscar Niemeyer
Luis Barragán House and Studio: The house and studio were designed by architect Luis Barragán
Paris, Banks of the Seine: The Louvre Pyramid was designed by architect I. M. Pei
Prague: The Dancing House was designed by architect Frank Gehry

We do: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Pritzker+Architecture+Prize

Dancing House by Frank Gehry might be added, we probably researched before already whether it is in the core zone.