Starting this topic with a set of sites that were up for a Preliminary Assessment in 2025 (for WHC 2029), but where the documentation was deemed incomplete. They can try again next year, which would make them eligible for 2030.

Burundi Résidence Royale : Cas de Gishora
Gabon Parc National de Loango
Gambia Historic Georgetown (Janjangbureh Island)
Guinea Massif du Fouta Djallon
Zambia Zambia's Southern Africa Liberation Heritage Sites of Humanism, Solidarity and Peace
Zimbabwe Naletale Cluster of Dzimbabwes
Algeria Massif de la Tefedest dans le parc culturel de l'Ahaggar

I'm wondering what year the following sites might return to:
- Großglockner-Hochalpenstraße: Austria
- Tabon Cave: Philippines
- Iznik: Turkiye
- Freedom Square with Derzhprom building: Ukraine
- Isla de Flores: Uruguay

Will the 2030 page be created soon, or is that too speculative?

If I understand the procedure correctly they have missed their last chance of circumventing the preliminary assessment which was to submit them by Feb 2026 for July 2027. Since the lists of sites submitted for preliminary assessment for both 2028 and 2029 are already comprehensive as they had to be submitted by now, they could only be eligible in 2030 or later. The only exception might be the Ukraine with an emergency nomination. This similarly applies to all sites involved in the upstream process. A further exception would be referred or postponed sites from the previous three years.

Heritage of Busan as the Wartime Capital is scheduled for 2030.

https://www.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2026052701553095456

https://www.busan.go.kr/eng/ai-translated-press-releases/1725138

Were put aside in favor of other sites for 2029, but were deemed complete.

- Salkhan Fossil Park, Sonbhadra (India)
- Tabon Cave Complex and All of Lipuun Point (Philippines)

I think it is too speculative. We can put our findings here. Next year same time we will see the full list of candidates in the document set via the Preliminary Assessments.

2030 nomination of Turkiye was just revealed.
Prepare for a new trip to Turkiye because it is a rarely visited site with only 4 visitors in the website.

Yesemek Quarry and Sculpture Workshop

It is announced today by an official local committee member on FB.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Ezneu5B8p/?

Iznik is a withdrawal. They need to renominate it and it is not the plan for Türkiye for the next four years. There is no deferral/referral waiting for Türkiye right now.

Looks fascinating. It's also unfortunately within the US State Department guidance for Do Not Travel (the 10km zone along the Turkish border with Syria), so I won't be heading there anytime soon, though there may be other intrepid travelers who can give a review.

It is quite a safe area; you hardly need to be an intrepid traveler to go there. By comparison, hanging out after 10 pm anywhere in Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, or Oakland, which I have done in all but Memphis, is probably 100 times more deserving of the adjective "intrepid" than traveling to Yesemek.

A bit too much snark considering there was no insult given? Simply some caution based on multiple Countries travel warnings. Just say its not dangerous based on your experience (other commentary is not related to the topic). Just my opinion (not a moderator).

I would highlight Els Blog post from September 2025 covering 'Top Tips for Traveling to Syria'

Based solely on Zoe's review (2022), it might not be ready for WHS status though.

Sorry if my tone came across as insulting; it wasn't personal at all. I just find it extremely absurd that, while the USA has some of the most dangerous cities in the world, they label some parts of the world as "dangerous" based on assumptions about risks that may have a one-in-a-million chance of actually occurring.

To be honest, if I were American, I might find this a little insulting. The warning to avoid areas within 10 km of the Turkish Syrian border made sense during the Syrian civil war, when rockets occasionally crossed into Turkish towns. But that situation has changed significantly since December 2024. There have been no recent rocket attacks in these areas, and violent crimes against tourists are extremely rare.

So why keep such a broad warning? One possible reason is the fear that tourists may assume the whole region is safe, cross the border into Syria, and put themselves at risk of kidnapping or violence. I understand why governments are extremely cautious, but to me, this feels somewhat paternalistic. It assumes that their citizens cannot understand the difference between safely visiting a place in Turkey and crossing an international border into a dangerous area.

This isn't particularly an issue regarding the USA - UK and, I suspect, many other European countries have the same rule for this area....... as does Canada - "Regional risks. Borders with Iraq and Syria - Avoid all travel. Avoid all travel to within 10 km of the borders with Iraq and Syria, due to the unpredictable security situation and the threat of terrorism." See here.

I am sure that a visit to Yesemek Quarry is absolutely safe for all these nationalities...... unfortunately all these rules are framed for bureaucratic convenience and are not particularly "Anti-Turkey". A lot easier to warn against all travel within 10km rather than highilight parts of the road along the border which might be particularly sensitive (Which is going to be variable - "The Turkish government has declared some areas in villages along the border with Syria special security zones"). It is up to individuals to decide for themselves..... Even leaving aside the possibility of "Terrorism" any UK travel insurance would be invalidated if something like an accident happened.....someone working for the Government might find their career damaged if for some reason at some village along the road a security patrol stopped their car for some "infraction" etc etc

I agree with all of this; I am more or less saying the same thing. The fact is that a country may declare a region "unsafe" for political reasons or because of potential risks. Those concerns may be valid, but they can also be exaggerated, and the region may actually be safer than many places within the country issuing the warning. I think this example is much closer to the latter.

Simply saying, "My government says this region is unsafe," and therefore labeling people who travel there as "intrepid" feels a little absurd if you actually know the region. It can feel almost like calling someone intrepid for traveling to Switzerland. I understand why governments are overly cautious, but a government travel advisory should not automatically be treated as an objective measure of how dangerous a place actually is. And I don't see any "anti-Turkey" sentiment in this situation either. I think it is simply a case of governments being overly cautious rather than having any particular bias against Turkey.

Welp, it looks like I opened a bit of a can of worms with my terminology. Perhaps it would have been better to say that while I am following my country's guidance, it would be great to see a review from other travelers (without the adjective) who do go there.

The Hittite craftsmanship at Yesemek does sound fascinating. What did you think of it when you visited?