Moving the discussion about TWHS locations to a separate topic....

Moving the post from Solivagant:

This morning I had a go with the first 3 countries alphabetically - Afg/Alb/Alg . I did this without remembering that Meltwaterfalls had "done" them and it is interesting to compare the results (below)
2 issues arose
a. Large National Parks. This is the same problem as with similar WHS except that the UNESCO documentation often provides an "answer" I adopted the approach of choosing the location of the NP name on Google Maps!
b. Multiple Locations. Whilst some T List descriptions are very good at listing these in a clear way, others consist of text which mentions a range of places/areas without really identifying whether they would be separately inscribed or would be included within a single wider boundary (or certainly fewer separate locations). Even if one puts in the effort to identify how close together they are one cannot of course still "know" how they would be handled in the case of any possible future nomination. Following them through can be a big job and there is perhaps a mental "pressure" to opt out of some of them. The result of this could be that someone using the map would miss out on a location which had not been included.

My results v those of Meltwaterfalls (MW) were as follows

Afghanistan
No real issues in identifying the 4 T List sites – each of which only has a single location
Bagh-e Babur 34.503061, 69.157998
Band-E-Amir 34.841505, 67.223768
City of Balkh (antique Bactria) 36.768503, 66.900473
City of Herat 34.359261, 62.186179

Albania
As far as I can see MW didn't include the 2 "Beech Forest" elements in his map – presumably because they were added after his initial "trawl". The other difference is in the way we have treated the "Ohrid Region" site. MW has only included 1 location (situated in the FYROM sector of the lake!!). I had chosen to include 3 locations – the towns of Lin in the north and Podgorca in the south as well as a separate one for the lake "littoral!
Extension to "Primeval Beech forests"
Lumi i Gashit 42.487147, 20.056888
Rrajca (Shebenik Jablanica NP) 41.220435, 20.447853
L'amphithéâtre de Durres 41.312234, 19.445066
Les tombes de la Basse Selca 41.312234, 19.445066
Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region
Pogradec 40.902902, 20.657687
Lin 41.065884, 20.644845
Lake Ohrid 40.983721, 20.651717
The Ancient City of Apollonia 40.721970, 19.472748

Algeria
Quite a lot of differences in the way we have identified locations for multi location sites.
a. The UNESCO description is quite clear that there are 6 separate locations of Royal Mausolea. I located them all and was quite happy with the accuracy of the coordinates.
b. I tried hard to identify the various oases with Foggaras (i.e Qanats!!) mentioned in the description but gave up beyond the main one at Timimoun – they are all supposed to be in that area anyway. It could be argued that there should be more locations.....?
c. I am pretty sure that there are 4 separate locations for "Nedroma et les Trara". They are all in the same region but are 30-40kms apart. I am happy with the accuracy of the coordinates
d. Parc des Aures, Gorges du Rhoufi et d'El Kanatara caused me a lot of problems. MW only identified 1 location. It is a mixed site and I would estimate from the UNESCO description that there are 10 Separate locations BUT. I have only been able to identify 6 of them!!
e. It is very clear that the "Itineraires Augustinien" contains" 14 different locations. I am not sure how many MW covered – but I can't find all of them. I am very happy with 11 but in the case of 3 II can't actually discover any area of ruins inside the 3 towns –some of the others turned out to be outside the towns of the locations. So I have just used the town coordinates with a "?"!

Les Mausolées Royaux de Numidie
La Soumaa d'El Khroub 36.271581, 6.684932
Le Medracen 35.707099, 6.434435
Le Mausolée Royal Maurétanien 36.575291, 2.552868
Le Mausolée de Beni Rhénane (Siga) 35.258452, -1.450772
Les Djeddars 35.127771, 1.183814
Le Tombeau de Tin Hinan (Abalessa) 22.182704, 4.186991
Foggaras of G Erg Occ (Timimoun) 29.261067, 0.238366
Nedroma et les Trara
Nedroma 35.010330, -1.747223
Sidna Youcha 35.117188, -1.779442
Honaine 35.178473, -1.657090
l'Ile de Rachgoun 35.321883, -1.480343
Oued souf 33.367872, 6.851756
Parc des Aurès, Gorges du Rhoufi et d'El Kantara
Ichoukkane NOT FOUND
Kasserou NOT FOUND
Parc de Belezma 35.545794, 5.941247
Menaa 35.128463, 6.088811
Merouana 35.634568, 5.906823
Les Tamarins 35.333334, 5.850000
Gorges d'El Kantara 35.229847, 5.704254
Arris 35.257061, 6.350732
Vallée de l'oued Abdi et la Guelaa d'Iguelfène. NOT FOUND
Vallée de l'oued El Abiod NOT FOUND
Sites, lieux et itinéraires augustiniens du Maghreb central
Hippone (Annaba) 36.883111, 7.751883
Calama (Guelma) 36.462769, 7.430626
Thibilis (Announa) 36.383287, 7.249984
Thubursicu Numidarum (Khamissa) 36.193667, 7.655952
Madaure (Nr M'daourouch) 36.077869, 7.901472
Thagaste (Souk Ahras) 36.283517, 7.957513 ?
Castellum Tidditanorum (Tiddis) 36.462571, 6.482969
Thagoura (Taoura) 36.170376, 8.033885
Milev (Mila) 36.444717, 6.268815 ?
Sitidis (Setif) 36.192348, 5.404056
Caesarea (Cherchel) 36.607455, 2.186915
Cartenae (Tenes) 36.512276, 1.304787
Theveste (Tebassa) 35.404692, 8.123042 ?
Tubunae (Tobna) 35.348271, 5.345655

Based on trying to cover these 3 countries I suggest that our "policy" in determining which/how many "Locations" to adopt for T List sites should be as follows
a. Where the UNESCO site description clearly identifies separate locations - then list them even if we can't find their coordinates
b. Where places mentioned in the UNESCO text are geographically separated then at least ensure that this separation is reflected in the locations chosen
c. Make use of the T List site title to help determine which likely to be separate elements. A title which consists solely of a "city" name is unlikely to require separate locations within it but one which refers to several locations within a city might well justify the identification of each
d. Try to ensure at least that the site's main "highlights" are listed as separate identified locations – unless they are clearly within the same complex or in the same town.

I found that some of the locations I decided to choose (for the sorts of reasons above) were very difficult to identify coordinates for. I suggest that we "list" all the locations using the logic/format already adopted for inscribed site locations. Where we have been unable to identify coordinates then the map "pin" would not be present. As a "sophistication" I would suggest that, where we are unsure of the location then a "?" should appear after the pin using a flag on the data set for that purpose.

elsslots
Just a minor correction!
Les tombes de la Basse Selca 40.991111,20.519167

Yes -"finger trouble" I am afraid - the coordinates for the Durres Amphitheatre got copied down to the next site by mistake
Out of interest, how did you choose the exact coordinates you proposed above?
Using Google maps and choosing the EXACT spot where it places its "pin" results in a location a few 100m away at 40.990423, 20.519313
On the whole I have tried to use the exact Google Map pin locations where they exist because they result in a direct link to its reviews and photos - which might be of use/interest.

Don't worry I'm as baffled by that decision as you are :( maybe I was trying to illustrate it was an extension to the already inscribed site?

When I first started making the map it was entirely for my own knowledge and use, so if I was unlikely to be heading to the destination soon then my groundwork may not have been so thorough. But as I progressed I tightened up.

Keeping that in mind perhaps this is a good opportunity to sense check my work, especially for countries that others have a more thorough knowledge of than me.

Aside from that I think all of Solivagant's observations and ideas are sound in terms of ways forward.

Agree


This would be a difference from the format that we use for the WHS (can be done technically of course). We could also just rely on the disclaimer, these are our best guesses for TWHS.

Have done Iran this morning so have now done a reasonable "trial" across 4 countries of what it going to be involved in identifying coordinates for T List entries
a. I don't think that the need for "Guessing" is going to be a big issue. In fact I would suggest that we do NOT "guess". There were only 2 of the Iranian sites where I could establish NO location coordinates at all for a site using locations garnered from the UNESCO description plus detailed searches for coordinate info on the Web. Iran's "Silk Road" where the T List entry (as Els and I have previously discussed) lacks any specific mention of any location. Now we COULD make a guess and put in Rey and Qazvin .... and?? Or just leave the site without any coordinates until we know more. The second site was "Hyrcanian Forests". Again the T List entry contains no specific areas - just the provinces likely to be involved. Here I took a different approach as I DID find an article on the Web which did specify 5 possible locations - and I was able to identify coordinates for 4 of them (though 1 was already on Iran's T List in its own right). So, the question is - should we include location coordinates in either of these 2 slightly different situations? If we take the latter approach then we should ensure that a link to the source is added to the site page? There is also the issue of sources for the locations. I came across a lot of "good stuff" at this level of detail which it seems a shame to "lose" - we could add a column to the spreadsheet format which could contain a single link to explain a location where thought worth doing - but where would you "put" these "location links"?
b. For all the other Iranian T List entries I was able to identify solid coordinates for at least ONE of their locations, so the site would at least have that to locate it. I failed most on the "Historical Bridges" - 4 found but 7 not. This slightly unfortunate as the locations are spread across quite a wide area of the province of Kuzestan so it is possible that one could pass close to 1 without knowing it. On 4 of the missing 7 I could mention a town which is likely to be nearby but..... how nearby?? I have tried to operate to the "Gold standard" of being able to identify cultural location coordinates to the level of detail of actually being able to see e.g the ruined bridge on Google Earth and right clicking on that ruin to obtain the coordinates or at least finding a "Google supplied" descriptive pointer!
c. The only other missed location was 1 for a site titled "The Natural-Historical Landscape of Izeh". This raises another issue. I could have just chosen the coordinates for the town of Izeh. But I don't believe that ANY of the locations are in that town - the mention of "Izeh" refers to the county of Izeh not the town. So - I established that there are likely to be 3 locations, found 2 of them and concluded that they were not so close together that they would be a single location if ever nominated, and left out the 3rd. Does this seem reasonable?
d. Whilst I had the benefit of having recently been to Iran and having carried out some searches of T List locations when planning that trip, Iran did provide some particular problems - Google map details were often in Arabic script and alternative spellings are legion in converting Farsi into an English approximation. In many cases Google didn't provide an entree and I found a number of tourist and Iranian Archaeology sites which were very useful to provide a starting point ( e.g http://www.tishineh.com/ ). Similar sources may have to be used for other countries too. To do the lot took me about 4 hours. It could have been done in less and I spent a lot of time on just a few locations but i feel that we should adopt a policy of preferring to have NO coordinates rather than inadequately researched ones! If you can't find an answer and don't want to spend the time (fair enough!) then leave it "empty". But, even then, there is no doubt that covering all the T Lists of all the countries is going to take a lot of man hours -and then Els has got to transfer our data onto the site.....!!
e. I have tried to compare my results with those of Meltwaterfalls. I am amazed that he got as far as Iran all on his own so, there is no criticism of his work to date but, as far as I can see (????) only 1 location per T List site has been established - and some sites I can't find at all. I agree with his suggestion above that we should "sense check" his work. But that really requires that it be extracted from the map and presented by location within site within country so that gaps and alternative results can be compared. Can he create a single list in that sort of format which we can all use? From what I can see it would certainly reduce the amount of work required if we don't have to start from scratch for every country. But I would suggest that we present Els with a combined and "complete" (or as complete as we can make it) picture for each country we cover so that she doesn't have to "mix and match" from different sources
f. In fact the exercise DOES repay the effort if you are interested in increasing your T LIst/Country knowledge - I found out a surprising amount about the Iranian T List sites despite all my earlier work.
g. Another issue which arose was the number of duplicates on Iran's T List -either already inscribed or on the T List twice. I have included these with a comment in order to assist "completeness checks" but we need perhaps to make comments on the "Site pages" where we find this??
h. It may be some time of course before Els can prepare this site to "receive" T List coordinates. Is it agreed Els that it IS worth doing and that the site will be changed? And is it Ok for you to receive coordinate lists in the mean time?
i. Finally - how should we present the results to you? I put the first 3 countries up on this Forum - and a mistake WAS found so there might be some benefit in making them public! But might it be better Els to send you the spreadsheet and do any checking AFTER the coordinates have been uploaded and presented in map format. That then raises the issue of column layout etc - I have country, site, location, coords, comment. I haven't assigned a location "number" - I assume we would continue to adopt the convention of single location sites using "001" and choosing the "most important" location (even if only arbitrarily!) of multiple location sites to have that number. Would it be of help to you in transferring data to your dBs if we numbered all locations?

yes, please
maybe I can define an Excel template, that would be easier for me than copy-paste every individual location

I have just added a few extra suggestions in this area which probably overlapped your reading the post! See paras a/e/i

It should be possible for everybody, to also see the coordiantes. That way other users can add suggestions or use the coordinates for other project.
I started making the Wikipedia Articles "Welterbe in XXX". So far there is only a list of the different WHSites, and some details in the description, but I would like to add maps, the different locations etc. How will we make sure, two people are not working on the same Country? And how will you be able to correct things, so the will actually appear just behind the contribution in the forum?

People will declare "I take Germany" in this forum topic, that should be enough.


I follow the forum, and correct it in the database. People can check the actual maps to see if there are errors.


If it is for a good common cause (and Wikipedia may be one), I'd be willing to share the coordinates. I will not share them publicly on the website, there are too many copycats around. The strength of this website is the huge effort that many people contribute voluntarily.

Effectively they are already shared as we embed them on the web site. If you want to protect the data we can obfuscate a bit. But in the end the javascript will always have to decode them and gets executed in the client.


I think that's the best approach. But...

Don't we need to make some changes to the site before the locations show up? Or other way around, so they don't show up? I also didn't get if you wanted to show them in the same country map or a second map.


And I do. Germany is mine ;)

Already made it to Hedeby. And I have to say, though, that apart from some unit issues (so many ways to provide coordinates) this is rather straight forward. What else to expect from the German effort ;)

I'll try and send over my working files a little later today, then we can build/ improve on those from there.

Sure. I've already added the ones in Afghanistan to the database, just for testing purposes. They do not show on the maps yet (as the api.php has to be changed for that).
I think the same country map would be the most handy (for creating itineraries).

Yes it is worth doing. But don't go too fast. I need Nan to prepare the maps and possibly also the site pages to be able to receive the new data and display them.

Let's first experiment a bit with the data you already have collected and the data set from meltwaterfalls. We can go on from there tackling and checking other countries.