To be fair for Monet Garden, it is not jardins a la français but jardins en français with interesting mainly english and japanese styles but base on french pattern. I understand the idea may come from landscape that inspire art similar to Val d'Ocia and Lake District nominations. Personally I love the idea for landscape that develop impressionist paintings as I really like Monet's Giverny works.

Among the sites that inspired the painting come to mind the Cliffs of Etretat and the Church Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption of Auvers-sur-Oise (postimpressionism), as well as the port of Le Havre where was painted the painting which gave its name to impressionism: "Impression, Sunrise", and the Moulin de la galette (Montmartre). Perhaps it would be advisable to consider serial inscription, possibly with the museums that house the masterpieces (Marmottan, Orsay ...). Let us not forget also that France has on its indicative list the sites of Paul Cézanne.

A serial nomination founded on painting inspiration(s)? Is that not a bit tenuous? What precedent would that establish if France nominated and successfully inscribed a serial nomination where OUV is intrinsically linked with a mode of (movable) painting? In fact, a serial nomination based on Impressionist Art could potentially connect completely unrelated component parts, which would be a slippery slope indeed, and not something I think ICOMOS could possibly support, no?

It's maybe tenuous, but i like the idea :) However it's more or less the case with the Le Corbusier architecture even if Le Corbusier's buildings allow life in society. But art could be representative too...or not :)

Nan's latest review of the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin made me (and probably others) worry that the Mining Museum at Lewarde was not inscribed - so does not count!

But I think it is inscribed, it is this location: Fosse Delloye, Centre Historique Minier

Kudos to Nan by the way for trying to visit some other, less obvious locations of this WHS.

Yes indeed, Els. That's the inscribed location as can be seen on the 5th cover photo on the WHS's official website: http://www.bassinminier-patrimoinemondial.org

Apart from the fact that if you drive to Lewarde you will most likely pass by several coal mounds and other industrial sites which are part of the buffer zone.

We have not yet visited this WHS but plan to do so & when looking for some info we came across the following document: http://www.bassinminier-patrimoinemondial.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Livret-des-1 00-sites-UNESCO.pdf

It gives a short overview of 100 sites in the region. Don't know if these match 100% with the inscribed sites since there seem to be 108 (maybe some are combined?), but it looks interesting anyway.

Ps: the Lewarde museum is also included (cf. number 33).

Kbecq
The other point i was making was that the locations were off... Seems to be the case here: the museum is inscribed but the location is missing or misplaced. ;)

I like Giverny as a WHS. However, I don't think this link between art and serial sites could possibly hold up and it would start a flurry of European nominations. How many sites in the Netherlands and Flanders would be listed? How about England where there's already a tourist trail for Gainsborough? I am probably as ardent a preservationist as they come and I still think there are cathedrals and old towns in Europe that should be listed (because I don't believe too much is too much), but didn't the WHC already kind of cut this down with the attempted link by Germany of Heidelberg to the Romantics and also Sturm und Drang?

There are certain sites, such as Giverny, that have OUV because of the state of preservation, the aesthetics, and the importance in history. These should be WHS. There are places that warrant listing (if Venice were not already on the list, the Scuola Grandi). Not serials sites where every Van Gogh was influenced.

Has anyone recent experience of hiking to the (closed) entrance of the original Chauvet Cave? How difficult was it?
I found this description of the "trail": http://www.malathronas.com/4549/how-to-hike-to-the-chauvet-cave/

Will be visiting in 2 weeks, and thought it would be a nice idea to tick off the core zone.

I was there in May 2016 (I should write a review), but unfortunately I could not find the entrance to the original cave. The description in the link above is very good. You have to go to the parking lot at the Pont d'Arc, the path that leads into the core zone starts just behind the restaurant. After about half an hour you should be in the core zone. However, I obviously missed the point where the path branches off to the entrance, my hike ended in dense scrub. Unfortunately my GPS had no connection. But I am not sure if the coordinates on the WHC homepage are the correct ones, the coordinates seems to be outside the core zone. This is also true for the (slightly different) mark in Google Maps. So, good luck.

Can we consider that if we touch the armored door, our presence in the central zone is validated?

Even earlier I think. The core zone explicitly includes "the structurally relevant parts of the limestone plateau around the cave as well as its entrance situation and immediate surroundings"

P.S.: here's a YouTube video of people who made it to the entrance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsQ4kA9V6cU

Okay, thank you for that clarification. I had been in the parking, swam under the arch and visited the replica, but I did not dare to take the trail up to the entrance. I intend to return and validate that one day.

I do believe they are wrong too. According to the website with the description of the trail, it should be about here: 44.383363, 4.413397
But in that case the map in the nomination file is wrong too, which is unlikely.

If the weather is OK on the day, I'll try and explore in 2 weeks....