Blog WH Travellers
Drive-by Visits
When I was in Kaziranga NP last month, I noticed that the authorities were constructing viewpoints along the main road that runs south of the park’s borders. From those, you can look into the core zone which starts maybe 50m beyond. During the season, you’ll certainly see rhinos grazing there and you’ll have the wide-open views of the landscape that is typical of the western part of the park. It may even be interesting to visit during the wet season to see where the animals take shelter (preventing the road isn’t closed due to flooding), as the effects of the water level fluctuations are a significant part of Kaziranga’s OUV. This insight prompted me to have a look at the value of Drive-by visits.
The ”problem” with Drive-by visits
The main issue with Drive-bys is that you generally do not enter the core zone of a WHS. I am not obsessed with this as seeing the OUV always trumps it for me. We have WHS that are fully closed and then we all ‘tick’ seeing the OUV from the buffer zone or as close as you can get.
Another issue is that while ‘driving by’ (well, I assume you make at least a roadside stop of half an hour or so), you spend relatively little time at the WHS. Kaziranga is a WHS with a high, 4* average rating. You do yourself a disservice by just watching it from the outside for half and hour, there’s so much more inside. Why do you travel at all if you speed by sites like this?
And: most WHS are not suited for Drive-bys as you won't see the OUV from the roadside. Looking at the other 14 WHS that I visited during my last India trip, for example, it wouldn’t work at:
- Konark Sun Temple, Ramappa Temple, Keshava Hoysala Temple: you can see the building but not the carvings that comprise the OUV.
- Rani-ki Vav cannot be seen at all because it lies underground, as are the Elephanta Caves which lie around the corner from the entrance.
- For Nalanda and the Moidams you may see a brick wall or a hump from a distance, but you get no idea of the extent or the layout of the site. Similar for Manas NP, where the park fringes are severely degraded.
- Sundarbans: you will at least have to take a boat tour to get any feel for the site, the islands in the Delta aren’t accessible by car.
- Mahabodhi Temple: you will encounter throngs of pilgrims in the streets and see the tip of the main tower, but it just makes no sense to not go inside the complex.
However, it could be an option at:
- Ahmadabad and Santiniketan (photo 2): here a drive-thru may be appropriate, best with a rickshaw stopping for photos here and there.
- Champaner-Pavagadh: you can see the typical mosque architecture of Champaner from behind the fence and since a (too) wide area has been inscribed you will even be in the core zone.
- The Western Ghats: after having had both outside and inside views myself, I am not sure whether getting into one of the 39 designated reserves changes the outlook on the Western Ghats in general. Probably the time spent in preparation and inside the park tips the balance in favour of getting inside (you acquire more detailed knowledge instead of: mountain range that acts as a barrier? Tick.).
Where drive-bys even maybe "better"
Landscape features such as Mountains, Forests, Deserts, and Lakes with generic OUVs like “highest mountain of Africa” or “largest freshwater lake in the world” are particularly tempting for Drive-by Visits. How else could you get a sense of scale?
Mount Kilimanjaro was only inscribed on the "superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty" criterion (vii). Its OUV of "with its snow-capped peak and glaciers, it is the highest mountain in Africa" almost begs to be viewed from a distance (photo 3).
Another example is Mount Kenya (with a broader, more specific OUV of glaciers, effects of glaciation + afro-alpine flora); 65 people have ticked this WHS but we have only 1, superficial review. I suspect most people had far-away views only! But: you can enter the park fairly easily. And can the effect of glaciation be seen well enough while driving on a road 50km away? I'd like to hear from someone who counted this via a drive-by visit.
St. Lucia’s Pitons Management Area even has views from afar as part of its OUV: “The Pitons predominate over the Saint Lucian landscape, being visible from virtually every part of the island and providing a distinctive landmark for seafarers.” Similar are the WHS in the connection ‘Visual effects of Cloud, Fog and Mist’, such as the Teide volcano and the Great Smoky Mountains.
Drive-bys out of necessity
I assume everyone aims for the best possible visit and drive-bys aren’t your first choice, but the reality of travel is that we can’t have good visits all of the time. Special circumstances such as the following can force you into a drive-by:
- longstanding site closure for renovations etc.
- acts of nature preventing you to enter
- too high entrance fees for your budget
- visited early when the site was touristically undeveloped or maps were not present
- or even something trivial like running out of time during a full travel day
Did you have any satisfying drive-by visits or even those where the experience was better than getting inside?
Els - 22 December 2024
Comments
Astraftis 23 December 2024
I would also say that a drive-by visit is often "highly enhancing", but as the main choice it is rather poor.
My usual scheme is to use it after the main visit of a site to hunt for smaller coponents: it was the case in Maulbronn (the ponds by themselves are not so OUVy), hunting grounds in Denmark, for some pile dwelling sites (for which, given they are otherwise inaccessible, I was content to pass near the spot while appreciating the surrounding)...
It might be a subcategory, but I would like to add the "taxi-by" visit. And... I was going to recount my hectic taxi-by visit of the Mani peninsula in Greece, but I noticed (strangely enough?) that it is not a WHS, nor a T, nor a FT! Then, I can remember a moped-by visit of Pyi in Burma, but that was more of renting the transport for the whole day and perplexing the driver by asking to go to each and every corner of the archaeological site. But in the end he seemed to like it, as he proposed some "bonus stupas" on the way back to town!
But in general, if I can only drive through/close to a city or national park I do not count it.
Liam 22 December 2024
@Solivagant - thanks! I knew I'd seen a better version somewhere was still wondering whether crossing over an inlet at Tankhoi (where the plaque seems to have been spotted!) counted. Actually I was in the core zone for hours and did, indeed, see a big old expanse of grey water. I'm still not convinced I experienced OUV - but let's face it, chances of a revisit are extremely slim.
Clyde 22 December 2024
Interesting. I agree that the amount of time spent is important for the drive/sail by/flight/train ride as well as the amount of preparation before and sometimes luck too (with wildlife). Semmering and Rhaetian railways come to mind ... for both I didn't take a train ride but I hiked or drove to specifically see the inscribed infrastructure and take in the views (which I would have missed or only got for a couple of seconds on the train itself). Belize Reef and Great Barrier Reef flights were great add-on/splurges/cherries on the cake together with diving/snorkeling. Sagarmatha flight I'm very happy for the OUV and a short hiking trip wouldn't have added much. I'd love to go camping there for the wildlife but less for the climbing. Donana NP and Fraser Island could almost be better as drive-bys for the wildlife and with enough patience and a beanie-bag for birdwatching.
Solivagant 22 December 2024
@Liam - "The maps on the UNESCO webpage are so bad that I'm not *entirely* sure whether the rail line between Irkutsk and Ulan-Ude runs through the core zone (Solivigant - work your magic!)"
Yes the offical maps are bad and yes the Ulan Ude-Irkutsk railway line does in part run through the core zone. The best source is the Dec 2023 "Reactive Monitoring Mission Report". Map 1 on page 14 whose text clearly states "The central ecological zone corresponding with the boundaries of the World Heritage property is delimited by the red line." See - https://whc.unesco.org/document/207572
Liam 22 December 2024
I would argue that a 'fly-by' is realistically the best way of visiting a site like Nazca in Peru. I couldn't even tell you whether I stepped foot into the core zone - but I certainly got a better (if rather dizzying) view from on high.
The only WHS tick of mine I would class in this category is a 'train-by' of Lake Baikal. The maps on the UNESCO webpage are so bad that I'm not *entirely* sure whether the rail line between Irkutsk and Ulan-Ude runs through the core zone (Solivigant - work your magic!); but this was a journey prior to me knowing about World Heritage Sites and I know that realistically I'll never be back in the vicinity.
Els Slots 22 December 2024
Oh, I like that dialogue with Gemini! @Solivagant
It also confirms my feeling that the main issue of drive-bys is the (low) amount of time spent on the WHS: "A brief stop at a site might not provide a comprehensive understanding." You don't see different aspects of the site and also (in my case at least) spend less time reading up beforehand (because you don't need all those details).
I also agree with @Luboang that drive-bys must be regarded as complementary "or even highly enhancing" to a regular visit inside.
Solivagant 22 December 2024
Just as Michael Ayers has "bike bys" there are also "sail bys" ,,,,,indeed this is likely to be a relatively common possibility when visiting islands, many of which are closed or likely to be difficult to visit on any vparticular day because of weather. The official boundaries of some Island WHS include the "sea" for a few kms beyond the land but that is of course a rather articificial distinction. Surtsey is one which many of us are likely to come across. There is even the issue of a "fly by". Angel Falls is one such WHS where this could come into play. I also remember overflying the Big Hole at Bloemfontain with an excellent view (now a "former TWHS") and wondering whether to count it if it ever got inscribed! If the sea surface around the island can be "inside" the boundary then how much of the "air" above it is?!
I have just had an interesting discussion with Gemini on some of these matters - other Community members might like to do so to get some extra insight into this strange (and probably indefinable) concept called "Visiting"!
See - https://gemini.google.com/share/cf240e3af9d9
Luboang 22 December 2024
Dont forget mount Athos for the fairier half of mankind... I dont see one can argue drive-by visit is better than setting ones foot in the actual place of interest but complimentary or even
highly enhancing and of course at times much more practical or even the only option.
Generally I observe as I gain experience with travelling new yet simmilar sites my sense of what constitutes a proper visit is evolving and my hunger for full fledged visit gets satiated easier.
Michael Ayers 22 December 2024
I don't have any drive-by vists... No, wait, that's now wrong, for the Saint Lucia Pitons, I was running very late, and had to hire a taxi to take me to the viewpoints before dark. Fairly disappointing.
However, I do have several "bike-by" visits, all of which were fairly large Natural Sites, without easily accessible visitor facilities, at least not anywhere close to the part of the Site that I was near. I still consider those to have been good visits, in most cases. By default, the length of time I spent going through the Site was significantly longer than a drive-by would have been, and the general scenery was well-appreciated. Additionally, it's common to be able to observe a lot of interesting flora and fauna that motorists would usually zoom right past. Not always the famous megafauna a certain site might have, but, on occasion, that happens, too. Huascaran National Park was a good example of that kind of visit for me.
I am also sometimes just as happy to "see" the core zone, as opposed to actually "touching" it.