So it depends how you want to define 'connected', theres a continuous body of water (with locks (edit: No locks) ), but, I assume, bridges going over that water.
I really don't think we are using the same logic, but if people want to argue that Europe and Africa are not physically connected by land, then I'm going to start claiming that England and Scotland aren't either, given the distance between Carlisle and Newcastle is less than from Port Said to Suez.
Oh wait, for some reason I was under the impression that the Bering Strait would still dry up or freeze during some parts of the year allowing to reach America going east without taking a boat or a plane. My bad.
But even taking this into account, I'm not sure I understand your latest comment (the one I'm replying to right now).
EDIT: ok, after reading your comment for the umpteenth time I understood. I just have to admit I'm very bad at geography.
EDIT 2: So I'm being downvoted for admitting I was wrong?
For a moment I thought it was one of those map which for some reason don't include NZ, then I noticed it's actually on the top left.
As far as I understand, different projections are more "correct" ways of laying out the globe on a plane, so while I have your attention I'd like to ask what advantage does this has over other projections?
There are no correct projections, only different use cases. Waterman's butterfly is very low distortion, conversely on a Mercator, paths of constant bearing come out as straight lines, as it was developed for shipping.
