Thanks Solivagant!! I didn't know this website existed. It's great!

Far from me spreading the unending components' madness, but just coming back thereof, it seems that Tarnowskie Góry does have more than one, more specifically 8 (labelled as A1, A2,... on the official map; not that there is too much awareness even on site).

If we have to keep it punctiform I'd go like that:
- A1: keep it centered on the mine's visitor center, as it is the only accessible point, but maybe also choose one of the shafts for entering the black trout's adit;
- A6: the tip of the Srebrna Gora or maybe between it and th Halda popluczkowa

The other ones should be more straightforward (in case I can help with the coordinates).

I mean, if Maulbronn has 20...

Here I think that the differing rationale is that there are three dimension involved instead of two: The biggest component is quite holistic, but then there are distinct emergencese (literally) on the surface, which however overlap or are contiguous with A1.

The AB ev says: "ICOMOS has requested additional information on whether the nomination needs to be considered a series or one single site, due to the way in which it has been presented. The State Party responded on 14 November 2016, stating that the property needs to be understood as one single property, the underground system being completed by the above-ground mining topography highlighted by characteristic areas."

So I think the official map needs to be updated accordingly (to 1 core zone).

Wow! So this was an issue! But I am sad that there is not so much recognition for the third dimension :-(

... even if the map is of 2017 and they do not seem to have changed approach.

Hi! I was just checking the sites of the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin and I think I have found a wrong point in the map.
The point 1360-108 "Terril 244" matches with the coordinates given in the Unesco web (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1360/maps/#map). However, if you check the document with all sites (https://whc.unesco.org/document/117782), there's nothing in those coordinates, so I guess it may be wrong in the Unesco web (and here too).

I think the correct coordinates should be these: 50.58549308769588, 2.305394196320967
Its name in Google Maps and location based in the document matches.

What do you think?

Yes you are right. I have changed it

The map of Nikko on UNESCO's site includes three specific markers for Futarasan-jinja (36.75835789618929, 139.59667319575496), Toshugu (36.75779217918605, 139.59876788402633), and Rinno-ji (36.754630637395145, 139.60055615556027), though these aren't reflected on their GIS map. Which would take precedent on our map?

When you examine the documentation (AB ev), it is clear that it refers to only one, contiguous location and is not a serial site. You can also see it in the periodic reporting from 2023.

What they have creatively tried to do on the map is to make clear that it is both a group of buildings and a cultural landscape. Neither UNESCO nor we have it listed as a cultural landscape by the way, but I think we should.

Actually...if you look at the map download it will be seen that there is ALSO one "exclave" beyond the contiguous Core Zone........This it turns out is Kodamado - Hall of the Small Pearl (there is remarkably little on the Web about it! This has a few photos and note that it mentions the hall's inclusion in the inscribed zone. ). The nomination file treats it as a part of the "C" group of buildings with the reference number "C13" See App 3-b-2 (Pdf page 67)- which also lists all the buildings within each group. (There are 103 buildings - Group A 23, Group B - 42, Group C 38). This excalve hasn't been assigned a separate location number by UNESCO - should we recognise it either on our map ... and/or in the Connection for "wrong number of locations"?

The phrase "Cultural Landscape" isn't easy to find in the Nomination documents as a large part of these do not seem searchable by Text as they are photocopies. BUT as well as a mention in the Legend of the site Map (the hatched area) there are -
Section 2 "Criteria for Inscription" subsection d "Criteria under which inscription is proposed" (pdf page 16) clearly states ".... and is also considered to be a Cultural Landscape as described in Para 39 of the OGs"
other mentions include e.g
Section 4 "Management" Table 1 (Pdf page 33) describes 2 categories of inscribed property . "The group of buildings" AND (separately) "The site included within the property (Cultural Landscape)". One presumes that the separate exclave for Kodamado was necessary because the land between it and the main area just didn't justify being included as a CL whereas the other 102 buildings were situated in a more "appropriate" environment ..... but there are other historic temples at Nikko which did not get this "separate treatment" to gain inscription depite being away from the main core area so somone must have thought that Kodamado was important enough to be separately treated in that respect (Though the Nomination File doesn't have a drawing of it among its "Drawings of the Major buildings")?

The ICOMOS evaluation is a bit mixed on its categorisation of the site - "In terms of the categories of cultural property set out in Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention, the Nikko shrines and temples are a group of buildings in a natural setting laid out by man to form a site, with the value of a cultural and associative landscape, as described in paragraph 39 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (1998).". What exactly is the meaning of "with the value of" rather than simply saying it IS a CL?? And it is not a "Cultural" AND "Associative" Landscape" as if these were 2 separate "things" - it is an "Associative Cultural Landscape" ("a type of landscape that holds cultural significance, not necessarily through direct human modification, but through the powerful religious, artistic, or cultural associations of the natural elements within it") In any case Nikko would seem to justify the Connection "CL not recognised"?

Following up Aitia's recent reivew of the "Laurisilva of Madeira" I noted that it is another WHS which is "anomalous" regarding its number of locations v its UNESCO listing.

a. The "Parque Natural da Madeira" is single entitiy with a size of 444 km2 which covers around 2/3rds of Madeira's area
b. The inscribed area of the "Laurisilva of Madeira" picks out 150 km2 within this where largely original Laurisilva remains in authentic condition.
c. The impression given is that these 15000ha are linked within a single boundary (the IUCN evaluation refers to "The Nominated site") - but this is not the case as is shown by the rather poor Map on the UNESCO Web site which highlights the inscribed areas in green.
d. The even worse (!) version of the Map in the Nomination file (pdf page 24) has partly readable text boxes at the top listing 18 Units or elements within the totality - these are given numbers which are partly readable on the map. Unfortunately the full text list has been lost in its photocopying and only numbers - 4 (Tranquada), 5 (Ribeira Funda), 9 (Rabacas) ,10 (Ribeira da Camisa), 11 (Mualhas e Urzal), 16 (Faja da Naquara e Balcoes),17 (Rocha Branca e Ribeiro Frio) and 18 ( Funduras) are readable!! But nowhere in the very thin nomination file are these described or a full list provided! The majority correlate well with known Levada Tracks .
e. But these 19 "units" are not all contiguous. A better and easier to read representation of the entire nomination is to be found in the "Protected Planet" map . This shows clearly that there are 9 separate areas.
f. These areas don't have easily identifiable names or numbers or coordinates. Do we really want to identify them separately as "locations"? Is UNESCO correct in regarding it as being in effect a "single" location?? A "half way house" might be to stick with the single location on our map and "location list" but still have a "connection" for "Incorrect number of locations" with an explanation and a link to the Protected Planet map? If, one day, we obtain the details of the inscribed area map polygons for display would we then "need" the multiple locations to link each of the polygon details to?.

While cleaning up the discrepancies surrounding the community identified locations, I found 2 more locations for Merv that have no coordinates on the UNESCO website. The locations I used are based on this study.

Mosque and minaret at Uly Kishman
37.934400, 62.112000

Minaret at Garry Kishman
37.924400, 62.208100

One more, which is shown on the map on page 32 of this:
Porsoy koshk - is approximately here but not shown on Google maps 37.66133418134984, 62.147964348215886

This leaves us with the final one, The Koshk-i Murat. It might be a just a double of Koshk lmaret
Putting it here where Google Maps has it 37.64097132567549, 62.166751858557866

Note: when you zoom in on our maps based on OpenStreetMaps, it does show the locations more in detail than on Google Maps

I think Dazu is missing two locations. It says 5, but we only show three.

Some of the 5 are very close together, you can only see the individual ones when you zoom in very much. Will check if their locations are correct.

UPDATE: moved the locations to the 5 official ones, looks better

@els: looked phishy. Issue I noticed is that google maps has had a significant error / offset in China. So, for any Chinese location I am entering I always check that the map shows something resembling what I want to put there.

Side note: We should maybe have a QA feed? Adding a lot of Chinese sites.

While mapping the core zone of the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, I found out that it has 2 separate locations:
- The large, unexcavated Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor
- The Pits of Terracotta Army

You can see them nicely on our map now.
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/mausoleum-of-the-first-qin-emperor/