Due to some bad experiences recently, which made 99% of the serious WH travellers here look silly after someone just clicked Heard & McDonald Island/Macquarie/Minaret of Jam as "visited" (all in 2021/2022), I feel the need to build a threshold before someone can "tick" an extraordinarily difficult to visit WHS.

The idea is: if you've visited one of those limited WHS, you are required to write a review of it as well before it will be added to your visited count. This will not only prevent careless ticking or honest small mistakes, but also stimulates sharing the real great travel experiences within our community. If you're not prepared to share, maybe this is not the right website for you.

The "extraordinary list" will be as short as possible, and taken from:
- https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Takes+more+than+5+days+to+visit (excluding Ogasawara, which has regular connections)
- https://www.worldheritagesite.org/ranking/most+visited+sites (the sites with 0,1,2 or 3 visitors)
The combination of these 2 subsets holds 35 WHS that would need a review first.

There will be a whitelist to clear previous visits.

Like to hear your thoughts about the whole concept, and which sites should be on the list.

If someone is planning to cheat, then s/he will be go with the easiest ones without touching the difficult ones if you light up the difficult ones. This may make cheaters more difficult to identify.

Yes that is a valid point. But there are actually 2 different things going on: (1) people unjustifiably ticking sites that are actually very difficult to visit, which devaluates the visit if one does so honestly, (2) people who get to a very high count by ticking common WHS liberally.

I don't know what to do about situation #2. I don't want to police, it should stay a trust system.

So Mrs Solivagant is going to have to write a review of Aldabra and Gough or her visits will be "cancelled"???!! I will write it for her - "I concur with everything Solivagant has said"

That's the problem with hard and fast rules. A sledgehammer to crack a very small nut? The egregious miscounts (or likelihood thereof) are pretty clear/few - In the very few cases where it matters surely the "rules" can allow a request for a review (even that could be fixed - "I was on this research ship......" - but who is going to do so for what benefit??) Most of the time surely none of us cares whether someone is recording unjustifiably?

She will be on the whitelist!

"A whitelist, allowlist, or passlist is a mechanism which explicitly allows some identified entities to access a particular privilege, service, mobility, or recognition i.e. it is a list of things allowed when everything is denied by default"
Hadn't understood! When you said "to clear..." I understood that people would be whitelisted and expected to "clear" within a given period - not given the privilege for ever. Doesn't alter my general view - but am not too bothered one way or the other

I actually don't care much about the ranking of the number of visits. Maybe because I'm far from the top and will never reach those numbers. But I absolutely understand that Els, Thomas, Luis and many others are annoyed by such fake profiles and cheaters. But in the end, everyone is cheating themselves.
I am also against strict rules, but I think it is a good idea to require a review for the hard-to-visit sites.
The spirit of this community is to share the experiences of travel and visits. If you ask for tips and help, no matter for which site or country, you get a lot of support here within a short time. In the whatsapp group even in less than a minute. That's incredible and great.
Everyone here would celebrate and admire it when someone manages to visit a site from the hard-to-visit list. And would want to know every detail. And everyone in this community would love to share their experiences. Anyone who refuses to do that is suspect.

First things first, I think we need to be clear what this site is and isn't. We are a traveler community that supports travelers interested in visiting WHS. We are not a competitive travel site and don't strive to be. And this is thanks to Els. It is telling when even Els feels the need to stipulate clearer rules.

While I travel for myself, most of us have their peer group they match against. Or thresholds they would like to reach. It leaves a bitter taste being surpassed by a hotshot averaging >100 sites a year and supposedly taking 5-digit (EUR or USD) cruises to distant Antarctic island chains by the week.

The Top Travelers used to inspire awe. The late Iain was just that, an awe inspiring traveler. As is Paul, both of whom I had the pleasure to meet personally.

With that in mind, I think a reckoning was due.


True, but I think we can quantify two topics meriting a checkup:
* Very remote sites being visited.
* Extremely fast progress. 50 sites a year would be my threshold.

For both, I would request community participation, i.e., keeping in the spirit with the above mission statement. Those who visit a lot, should give back to the community in the form of the occasional review or photo or rating.

Those who made it first to a remote site, should def. share how they did it.


I would add unreviewed and unrated.
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/ranking/unreviewed+or+unrated


Not PC to use whitelist. Allowlist is the proper term nowadays ;)


Na, I think we would just new mark visits as pending (not counted) if they are to sites that qualify for community participation or exceed a yearly threshold.

Understand the problem. In the end, they fool themselves. What's the point of counting if it's not true?

I will make sure (unless there is a new generation covid) I will MAKE A HUGE REVIEW of Ivindo Park in 2023.

I agree. But you have to check then. As I will be over that for sure this year :-)
Mainly as I did various Europe trips you can easily take in 10 a week in 5 times a week trip.

But, I agree, you simply cannot do 50 around the world with some difficult once unless you have plenty of money to throw on it and no need to work.

I almost entirely agree with what Hubert and Nan said. I am not very high in the ranking and will not be in the foreseeable future, if ever. For me the biggest fun is to visit a particularly remote site (even more fun if done with family) and then share my experience here or on my personal blog. It annoys me if anyone ticks very difficult site and does not share their experience. Hubert explained that perfectly in his last two sentences 'And everyone in this community would love to share their experiences. Anyone who refuses to do that is suspect.'

To the subject - long time ago I have made a list of very difficult sites. Most of them are covered by Els' proposal, but perhaps not all. Two from Chad may be excluded as there are regular trips there. Initially Rio Abiseo was not on that list but I realised regular 'Rio Abiseo tours' from Tirapoto most likely do not cover the core zone. So here we go:

Sanganeb
Los Katios National Park
Papahanaumokuakea
Rio Abiseo
Macquarie Island
Tadrart Acacus
Aldabra Atoll
Gough and Inaccessible Islands
Henderson Island
Nahanni National Park
Sub-Antarctic Islands
Tubbataha Reefs
Air and Téneré
Bikini Atoll
Minaret of Jam
Noel Kempff Mercado National Park
Cocos Island
East Rennell
Phoenix Islands
Putorana Plateau
Taputapuātea
Archipiélago de Revillagigedo
Garamba National Park
Malpelo
Sukur
Chiribiquete National Park
Ennedi Massif
Heard and McDonald Islands
Lakes of Ounianga
Manovo-Gounda St. Floris
Okapi Wildlife Reserve
Salonga National Park
Sangha Trinational
Wrangel Island
French Austral Lands and Seas
Ivindo National Park

And relatively easy site which is impossible nowadays: Villages of Northern Syria

I dont think below 600 visits verification makes any sense or anyone cares. We are really only taking top 10 visitors. So, finishing Europe won't really help. In addition, you would be marked as active community member anyhoe ;)


The usual suspects ;) I would add a few more ones that required planning and preparation and are subject to cancellation:

* Anything related to boats: St Kilda, Surtsey, Skellig Michael, ...

* Anything requiring limited places: Skellig Michael, Athos, Malta
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Visitor+Limits#454
** Note: Mountain Railways of India are also limited.

* Discriminatory entry policies: Athos wouldn't actually (boat tour available), but Okinoshima Island seems pretty hard as a woman.
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Discriminatory+Entry+Policies#454

* Anything in a warzone, e.g. Ancient City of Tauric Chersonese and its Chora (Crimea), Kenya, Yemen, Syria, Congo

With Okinoshima Island everyone can get in the core zone as there is the mainland section, but yeah the main part is off limits to most and specifically to women.

I would like to continue with a limited list that needs a review before ticking.
Combining the suggestions above, I arrived at this list of 44 WHS. The red ones are doubtful in my opinion.

Things I considered:
* Keep the list as short as possible: when plenty of people have visited it already and there are 2 reviews already explaining all there is, it's not an "impossible" site to visit anymore.
* Can I easily find an answer to the question "How in earth am I going to get there" (sites with 0 helpful reviews)

I did not add WHS that are temporarily difficult to visit due to war (Sana'a would be a good example, but also the Northern Syrian villages): many people have visited in the past and it's no puzzle how to do it when the situation is more bright.
-> I don't know of other examples except these two which aren't already on the list of 44.
-> It would need a kind of 'waiver' for new subscribers, who have visited these in the past. Too complex.
But I can be convinced otherwise!

List looks like the usual suspects.

We can add a column on sites and the visits:
* Sites: ReviewRequired y|n
* Visits: Pending y|n.

When someone updates the visit, Pending is set to value of reviewrequired.

For all counts and displays, we filter by Pending = 0.

Question: Do we need verification for fast updates, too?