My question is about how the Nepal/[del]Tibet[/del] China border was established, specifically in respect to Mt Everest.
Was the border intentionally run through the summit of Mt Everest, knowing its significance, or was it just coincidence?
I would have guessed yes. But the wikipedia entrysays:
Which if true predates the recognition of Everest as the highest mountain on Earth in the 1800s.
The Nepal-Tibet border was not part of the independence/partition process at the end of the Raj (which left the world with thehighest war on Earth due to sloppy surveying of mountainous regions by the British)
Mountains (and rivers) are natural borders, and it makes sense to draw a mountain border along the highest line possible. So whether or not anyone knew that Everest was the highest mountain on earth, they knew it was the highest point locally.
So as climbers who have summited Mt. Everest from Nepal walk around the peak area, they might actually wander into Chinese territory?
After rivers, watersheds are probably the most common physical feature used to define borders. Many prominent peaks lie on the borders of two countries.
I’m not sure, without looking at a map, but outside of the United States, where the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers are used to define several state borders, are rivers used as borders all that much? Often, owning the entire river valley is useful. The Nile doesn’t define many (if any) borders that I recall, nor the Congo, nor the Amazon, nor the Mekong, nor the Rhine, nor the Danube (a few here and there), etc. I’d bet that watershed dividers are more commonly used than rivers, but that’s an impression based upon what I recall of the map of the globe in my mind, not actually looking at it.
Even more common if you consider other federated countries like the United States, where rivers are borders between states/provinces/districts.
Almost certainly they do, given that the summit is only “about the size of a pool table”. Just 2 steps would take you across the border. 3 steps would have you fall off one of the other sides of the mountain.
I expect the opposite is true as well, as you can summit Everest on a Chinese approach.
I’ve heard the climb is easier from the Chinese side, but China issue permits.
Nepal issues permits too, but I think China has only recently been opened to the Nepal level of tourism. Will leave details on that and the climb to those who know more than me.
The climb through the mid-level is easier, and the distance from Camp 4 to the top is slightly shorter.
Nepal also requires permits, costing $11,000 each, and the ever cash-strapped (and quite corrupt) Nepalese government will give one to pretty much anyone who can get themselves to the permit office and has the cash. China may be a bit more restrictive with them, as it tends to be less crowded on that side, but they have recently completed a highway to Everest, and climbers can now actually drive right up to their tent at Base Camp. It’s still a 13-day, 39-mile hike on the Nepal side, but you actually go much farther than that because it’s part of the acclimatization process, and you’re traveling back and forth between stops along the way as you gain altitude.
I guess they need to take their passports then. Sucks to be the Chinese and Nepalese border patrol and immigration officers assigned to that border crossing duty. 
It’s also socioeconomically unsound, because human settlements commonly converge on rivers rather than be divided by them.
Natural borders tended to arise in history because they represented the point at which an invading army would have to stop, thus making them easy to maintain, relative to a border across flat land.
Possibly they could have one like the one we have between Canada & the Northwest Angle in Minnesota – a booth where you phone in to the respective country.
Of course, running that phone line up the side of Mt. Everest would be tricky. And keeping it from being downed by the ice buildup, or constant high winds, or frequent avalanches.