Is the corezone for Chateau Dampierre correct?
And why is Bleuse Borne missing on the unesco website?

Strange things happen in the mining basin!

- the Château Dampierre is indeed not correct, but surprisingly enough, despite the name, it does not include the parc and the palace, but some other building. I incorrectly mapped the buffer zone, I will make it right.
- I noticed it too and I have no idea. But the official maps do report 109 areas, so it's UNESCO losing one, not a mapping error.

Well spotted, Jakob!!!!

We have noticed this before, it is in this connection: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connections/incorrect-unesco-number-of-locations/

Of course! It's quite comical. The very disorienting thing is that they renumbered everything officially instead of skipping the number 11 as per the tables.

Anyway, I will correct the buffer/core zone of château Dampierre and re-upload two maps for the two parts of the WHS (Nord & Pas de Calais), because I am not sure whether the resizer I used messed up with all the small locations. The original map was around 140kB. Also, there are a couple of locations wich appear unfilled, I don't get why.

OK, I reloaded the Nord - Pas-de-Calais mining basin split in three, roughly: Nord, Lens, and the rest of Pas-de-Calais. They have each more or less the same number of elements, while the one in Lens are the most complex ones. With so many areas and thin zones I did not trust an automated size reduction (in total it is around 140kb and the areas I drew are already quite crude).

I corrected the core zone of the location 11, the château Dampierre, even if it still looks very suspicious; I improved location 10, Bleuse Borne; and I revised a small problem (crossing lines) in location 48, Paysage et ensemble miniers de Drocourt. The old geojson file can be removed.

And then, as a more relaxing core zone, I have uploaded Tournai :-)

I have made partial efforts: Ancient Beech Trees in Poland, Great Spas in Austria

I have gone back to "work" as well, and am focusing on Russia:
- Derbent
- Putorana Plateau (c) Protected Planet
- Lake Baikal (c) Protected Planet

Done yesterday:

Carthage by Ian. "Interesting" shapes, a good one to have. He also updated the locations of the dots as they were a bit off.

Ferapontov Monastery by me: has no official map, but the nom fil and ab ev are clear about what it is (monastery compound within the walls)

Bali Subak System by me: this is a very weird set of components. For the 2 larger components I tried georeferencing for the first time. It worked, but due to the craggy lines it still is a best effort attempt.

The Subak Landscape of Catur Angga Batukaru component is much larger than the core zone currently estimated. For example, Luhur Besikalung Temple is located slightly Southeast of the Jatiluwih Rice Terraces, which are all comfortably within the inscribed boundary.

Can you explain this a bit more, winterkjm? Especially "larger than the core zone currently estimated"?
I based myself on the official map, part 003.1 Catur Angga Batukaru (component C). Do you think this component is displayed wrongly now on this website? (the POI location for Jatiluwih Rice Terraces might be off)

On this map, Luhur Besikalung Temple is identified within the inscribed boundary. The Jatiluwih Rice Terraces are Northwest of this specific temple.

Pura Luhur Petali (-8.360791587514873, 115.11575468108704) is identified in nearly the heart of the inscribed map, but is not included in the boundary thus far indicated on our site. I also identified some POI's in the other part of the forum.

The current identified boundaries of Catur Angga Batukaru (component C) are missing ALL portions of the Subak for that component.

Yes, I see it from our POIs. However, the official map at the UNESCO website shows that the border starts a little east of Luhur Besikalung. So that would mean that all locations further east are out. See:



UPDATE: I now see what you mean! I think I mapped the Luhur Besikalung wrong for georeferencing. Will fix!

Our map here though is so small? https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/bali-subak-system/

Its missing a huge portion of the inscribed area? All the places I mentioned are West of the temple, not East.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vEOPy1xQbrK-yA-X-GlKUUZqGhAVvbZ3/view?usp=sharing

I crudely identified where our current map splits the inscribed property in half.

I have put up a new version. A bit crude, but better I think: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/bali-subak-system/