Michel has sent me a link to his labour of love: http://aeo1us.com/whs/

The aeo1us.com/whs/ site wants to be a practical tool for people who want to plan a trip in a part of a country visiting UNESCO world heritage sites. It regroups the UNESCO world heritage sites per administrative subdivision of a country and proposes the optimal itinerary to visit them.

Looks rather... dated. I don't think we should link to it.

The info seems all accurate and includes all serial properties. I checked Korea's page and the United States page. It does seem potentially very handy to print for planning purposes and to make sure you utilize geography in not missing those components that may have been overlooked.

The page itself does seem dated in its general layout, but from what I saw the website included information from newly inscribed sites.

Sorry what is this supposed to do/help? I clicked on China and it's a spreadsheet with descriptions and then it links to the official UNESCO website.

The hotspots make more sense in my opinion, and any die hard traveler makes their own map before they go, right? like, throw everything on a google map and map the best routes?

A very ambitious idea and a lot of work must have gone into it thus far!!
I think we should always link to Web sites which try to describe more about WHS and especially if done by a member of this community. This very web site has developed considerably across many iterations and the experience of its users as well as the IT skills of some of them. Attempts by others should be encouraged.
I am less concerned with the relatively "clunky" user experience than by the value of the contents.
I quite liked some of the videos which must have taken some finding - The Burkina Faso one showing Loropeni for instance!! I will enjoy browsing through some of the others - both known and unknown to me
I was particularly taken by the one of Syria ("Visit Syria this year!!" - which year??) which showed a couple of very enthusiastic Syrians expounding the virtues of Aleppo among other places!!

I had a look particularly at UK (my home country) and at Colombia (recently visited) to try to assess the utility and accuracy of the "travel advice" aspect. A problem is that there is nothing quite like practical experience for identifying the "best" routes etc. The basis premise of identifying the nearest "capital town" of the County/State/Department in which the WHS (or an element thereof) resides and then identifying the route between them is, in my view, basically "flawed".
I looked at Saltaire and the route starts at Wakefield because that is the "County Town" of the "Wakefield District of West Yorkshire - in which Saltaire is situated . The map shows the route between the 2 but no one would ever try to reach Saltaire from Wakefield. - and any site which suggests that they should is leading people on a long wild goose chase
A similar issue for Stonehenge and Avebury - Trowbridge is an attractive little town but of no particular note and does not need to be taken in when visiting Stonehenge etc.

I then looked at the Coffee Landscape of Colombia. As some of you might know I regard myself as having a PhD on this WHS. Manizales has been identified as a node point for visiting the elements in the Department of Caldas. A plus point - this town is indeed a good starting point. But then for some reason the route wonders off to San Lorenzo. No doubt this will take one through some of the CCL but it misses out the star attraction of Salamina.

I suspect that similar comments could be made about many of the other sites by those who have visited them.

What is Michel offering to and wanting from us?? A "Finished article" for us to use or a starting point for suggestions and improvements?

Maps are there, when you click on the title bar (usually on the word 'world heritage sites').
I just wanted to reward the effort that has gone in it and it can have some use if you travel in a certain state/province.
But of course, it has nowhere near the practicality of our maps or your own itineraries.

My remark referred more to how SEO works. Having a back link from here raises profile and we should make sure it's a proper effort. Like I said, the web design left me wondering if that was the case. If it's a confirmed community effort, then fine. And please feel free to contact me if you need quick ideas to make it better.

For here, maybe we should just take it as an idea for our page? I assume the OUV of the site are the "itineraries" or "tours."

Proposals re maps we had (to be shown only on individual site pages):
* Ian -> Core zone as area.
* Nan -> POI, e.g. Tour Eiffel in Paris, Fitzroy in Glaciares, ...

We could also add a sub page to each sites akin to a wiki where we maintain practical information.

Finally, I think we should be able to write country reviews. Els posts these in her blog. And I write them here in the forum. But I think having them on the country page would be nice.

Thanks for flagging this up, whilst I understand some of the reservations it certainly should be applauded for the effort and the attempt to make a practical tool.

Yep, we on here know our way around these places a little better, but I quite like the idea of having an automated itinerary. I doubt anyone will ever go on a holiday derived from an algorithm (though the idea appeals :)) but to have an instant starting point I thing that is good.

Layout and design could perhaps be improved a little, but think it is a nice little bit of work.