We've for a long time kept a connection of WHS where the UNESCO website displays (in our opinion) an incorrect number of locations.

Well, it seems that they have hired another intern and a fix a few of those. jonathanfr was so brave to check them all again and sent me a list with corrections. I'll post some of them here while I am in the process of correcting them:
- Kii mountains, Fraser Island and Painted Troodos Churches have now been corrected on the UNESCO website to 'our' number
- Cuzco now shows 4 locations, which I have amended on our website

more to follow

An interesting subject regarding this topic is why sometimes a 'serial nomination' has not been chosen, while the WHS obviously mainly consists of a number of specific 'components'.

This is the case for Grand Canal, which has 1 location and consists of 31 'groups of buildings'.
And, similarly, with Augsburg which comprises only 1 location as well and 22 named components.

Both are linked to canals (one more grand than the others), so in this case the geographical aspect of the canal as a linear thing has been given prevalence above constructions that additionally contribute to or show the OUV.

We do not handle this consistently now at this website (31 for Grand Canal and 1 for Augsburg for example).

When the full details of the Augsburg inscription were put up on the UNESCO Web site I was rather surprised to see it described as a single continuous site but that IS indeed the case -look in detail at the map
When I reviewed the site when still on the T List all the documentation I found - including the notice boards in Augsburg - indicated that the site would be made up of a (Varying according to the document!!) number of locations BUT as per the map it actually consists of a single CONTINUOUS (albeit branching and rejoining) line all the way from North to South following all the canals. The map isn't very good for looking at the detail - especially in the city itself and I was particularly interested to see how the 3 fountains were handled. As far as I can see they too are connected to the red line!!
The AB eval is confusing - it refers to 22 "elements" but also states "The boundaries of the property are defined by the limits of the canal system" and "Underground canals and water supply pipes connect all the elements". I would take this as meaning that the 3 fountains are connected to the inscribed area of the canals by the underground pipes!!!!
Hence just a single linear inscription???

The Grand Canal on the other hand certainly consists of a number of SEPARATE core areas -which is why ICOMOS was so concerned that there should be a "level 2 buffer zone" (I am not sure if this concept of Buffer zone "levels" has ever been officially defined/accepted) which connects the entire length of the canal and its branches. This issue almost derailed its inscription.

As for our own possible "Inconsistency" - well we try, do we not, to follow UNESCO using its documents and maps and only "correcting" where these are inconsistent/wrong. It is certainly true that the Grand Canal and Augsburg canal system have been treated differently but not "wrongly" and we have correctly reflected these different approaches.
The Grand Canal as a number of separate elements (many of which are themselves "linear") "connected" by a continuous Buffer zone (I think China complied with this??). Multiple location sites are usually given separate reference numbers by UNESCO and these are listed on the Map tab page. That has not been done by UNESCO for the Grand Canal which leaves us to try to work out how many separate "locations" there are but separate ones there would indeed seem to be!! In its 2016 revised evealuation ICOMOS actually refers to it as a "Serial site". China has also identified and "coded" them - e.g "TJ03 - Zhenzhou section of Tongji Canal". Whether we have covered all them correctly I don't know.
The "Augsburg Canal" as a single linear core inscription with branches extending no wider that the water courses and pipes connecting them!!! This despite the ICOMOS evaluation referring to "22 elements" which are actually being treated as being connected into a single continuous core zone. As a result neither UNESCO no ourselves have identified separate locations. We could I guess go back and identify each of the 22 and give them location numbers and coordinates on the map!! It may be more "useful" but it wouldn't seem to be "correct"!!

Really odd lay-out, isn't it? The core zone extends underground without incorporating the buildings on top of it (unless the water comes above ground again, for example at the fountains and a building such as the Stadtmetzg which was connected to canals as well). Coincidentally I visited yesterday.

St. Petersburg: We should harmonize in the following 2 pages the number of locations to have 126 as on the official UNESCO website.

36:
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/St.+Petersburg

81:
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Serial+sites+with+the+greatest+number+of+locations

126:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/540/maps

Thanks jonathanfr, I will add them.

And also for your work in (finally) getting the numbers right on the Routes of Santiago de Compostela: 1932!
The clue lies in the 2014 document on this page. All the locations are in there, although confusingly, they have listed 611-978 after 1673-1912. Unfortunately without usable coordinates (Spanish wiki has a subset).
(It may take a while before I add all those.)

I have added the missing ones, and ended up with 112. The others displayed on th unesco maps page are only groupings or headers, no locations in themselves (they have no coordinates).

I am currently prepping my upcoming trip to Kenya, and stumbled upon this issue about the Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests:

The UNESCO website's Maps page shows 8 locations, including #8 Kaya Kinondo (which happens to be visited the most as it conveniently lies near Diani Beach).

However, the inscription decision from 2008 says: Inscribes the Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests, Kenya, with the exception of Kaya Kinondo, on the basis of criteria (iii), (v) and (vi);
(this on advice of ICOMOS which found " the integrity of Kaya Kinondo has been compromised by the tourist development on its seaward side, as the forest has been reduced and in its place tourist accommodation has been developed which now forms the setting of the site to the east")

Furthermore, the nomination was for 11 locations (of which 1 got removed) -> so the total should be 10 not 8? (update: they grouped 3 into 1, without explanation)

Any other views on this? Otherwise I will remove the location (and will start looking for another Kaya to visit in June)

The WHC decision to accept the recommendation of ICOMOS and exclude Kaya Kinondo must have been quite a blow to the locals given its close proximity to Diani Beach - already a tourist hot spot when I visited in 1975!!! And there are adverts etc from local tourist companies advertising a visit to Kinondo which either deliberately or accidentally "mislead" on this subject -
a. This article from 2012 "Designing for sustainability in cultural landscapes: The Kaya Kinondo Forest of the Mijikenda Community, Kenya" contains the phrase "The sacred Kaya forests were gazetted as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2005; this designation has strengthened protection of these forests (UNESCO, 2005)." without clarifying the status of the very Kaya it is primarily about!!!
b. This advert for a tour from Diani Beach which states "Explore the serene Kaya Kinondo Sacred Forest, a UNESCO World Heritage site rich in biodiversity and cultural heritage near Diani Beach." Just plain wrong!.
c And this one by Away Holidays "Visit to Kaya Kinondo - This half day tour to the Kaya Kinondo Sacred Forest is a great learning experience, as you would not only explore the rich wilderness of the region but also enjoy a visit to the Kinondo Village and experience local traditions. A walk through the forest will offer you an opportunity to see many rare species of animals, birds and plants. The Kaya Kinondo Sacred Forest is a proposed heritage site by UNESCO, and is widely renowned for its scenic landscape and interesting tribe rituals." My BOLD - well it was and I suppose still is a "proposed UNESCO heritage site" even if it got rejected!!!

I think this undated (but presumably from around 2018) document produced by Kenya Museums (who should know about these matters and are unlikely to give up on a Kaya unless justified) is the clincher - "STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE SACRED KAYA KAUMA FOREST 2019-2024"
I quote (my BOLD) - "Kayas epitomize the history and culture of the Mijikenda and are now listed as the World's Heritage Site by the UNESCO. There are some kayas gazetted as world heritage sites such as Kaya Fungo, Kauma, Kambe, Ribe, Bomu Fimboni, Mdzimuvya, and Mtswakara, while other are not e.g. Kinondo and Muhaka."

I think the other arithmetic problems all relate to different handling of the "3 Rabai" and the "2 Burama" to get from 7 (i.e the 8 currently listed Inscribed sites less Kinondo) plus 2 extra Rabai and 1 extra Burama = 10