I was also in doubt reading the document. It also states at page 52: "If the three proposed sections are inscribed on the World Heritage list, the European frontiers of the Roman Empire would be distributed over four separate World Heritage properties. "

On the other hand, the description of the Lower German Limes says: "The nomination of this part of the Limes as an extension of the FRE WHS"

I also noticed the similarities with the Silk Road nominations

I think I have bottomed this issue!

The Netherlands version on the UNESCO site of the Description of the Lower German Limes ( http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6298/ ) differs in many respects (way beyond the obvious one of having different proposed locations) from the German one ( http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6299 ) which you quote above!!! In particular it lacks the statement which mentions the word "extension"!!! Instead it states "The Lower German Limes will be nominated as a single, distinct (serial) property, following the nomination strategy for the Frontiers of the Roman Empire, written in 2017 by the States Parties involved in the proposed nomination of the frontiers in Europe"

The audit trail for this goes through the "Koblenz Declaration" of 23/6/2004 but achieved "official" UNESCO status in a decision as recently as at the Krakow WHC in 2017 (We missed that!!). This document - https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2017/whc17-41com-8B-Add-en.pdf addresses the issue of "LARGE COMPLEX SERIAL TRANSNATIONAL NOMINATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NOMINATION STRATEGIES" (see Page 21) using the FRE as its main example for action but mentioning also a number of other Nominations involving 4 or more States Parties which have been/can be so complex as to benefit from an overall "Nomination Strategy" to be developed across all the elements. For the FRE it proposes one which "augment(s) the current serial property via three serial nominations for the Lower German (i.e. Lower Rhine) frontier, the Danube frontier, and the frontier of the Roman province of Dacia".
This general proposal (framed specifically in terms of the FRE ) was accepted at Krakow as Decision 41 COM 8B.50. See http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6922/

So - at last we arrive at an answer to the question posed by Zoe 2 days ago - in line with the decision reached at Krakow, and in contradiction to our earlier incorrect assertions (!!!), the FRE "Lower German Frontier" should be nominated as a separate WHS rather than as an extension !!!

The further anticipated elements of the FRE in Europe (Danube and Dacia) will ALSO be nominated as separate "clusters" with their own justification, OUV etc etc. As a result Germany would finish up with THREE different WHS covering different areas of the FRE!!!

The existing inscribed elements of Hadrians Wall, Raetian-Upper Rhine and Antonine Wall will remain as a single "WHS" on the argument that these 3 elements, despite their geographic separation, cover those sections of the Frontier represented by "Walled Fortifications" (as opposed, for instance to "River Frontiers" as in the Lower Rhine and Danube) and, as such, fit "logically " together. This strikes me very much as a post hoc rationalisation which avoids having to break up an exisiting WHS!!

Thanks for finding this out, Solivagant. Don't know whether I am happy with the outcome though...

Good news from Munich:
The City Council has decided to suggest the Olympic Park for World Heritage Site. The Department of Urban Planning is commissioned to prepare the nomination.
Good news in times when cities like Vienna or Liverpool have difficult negotiations with ICOMOS and WHC. But still a long way: Bavaria must agree, only the federal states can propose nominations to the KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz = Standing Conference of the Ministers of Cultural Affairs). Only the KMK decides whether a site is put on the Tentative list.

http://www.wochenanzeiger.de/article/203791.html

Das ist wirklich eine sehr gute Nachricht für Fans der modernen Architektur! That is really very good news for fans of modern architecture! (like I). That would be definitely a great candidate, to honour the genius of Frei Otto. I hope that the Bavarian government goes along with it.

I am delighted by this, it really is a great sight and the work of Frei Otto sits perfectly alongside the graphic design elements of Otl Aicher which are still very evident around the park.

I'm wondering if this may indicate this website has a little tiny bit of influence on World Heritage Site policy. When I initially proposed it back in the heady days of 2008 I was just 'spitballing' on my own little passions of 20th century architecture and sport. And to my knowledge it had never been proposed before (I've had a quick google search and can't see anything predating 2008).

As such I'm saying categorically that our proposal to put it forward for the Top 50 missing sites MUST have been picked up as a great idea and has directly led to its current move to certain inscription!!

Well even, if not I'm going to claim it anyway :)

Happy 100th Birthday Bauhaus.

In case any of you were wondering I'm a bit of a fan. :)

Aachen Cathedral, this is getting annoying. First time I visited there was an event in the morning, randomly, not a Sunday morning service or anything, and all visitors had to wait for the afternoon. Entrance is not "free" as the connection says, maybe it was 10 years ago.
Second visit this year and they ONLY let you go in with guided tours on the hour, in German, and they are easily sold out. If anyone can confirm this is now "guided only" or just off season we can update the connection. So many tourists from China, France/Wallonia were turned back it's unbelievable.

I can only add some desk research, because I have not been there lately:
- According to the official website: sightseeing hours start weekdays at 11 a.m. and at 12.30 p.m. on Weekends.
- Some parts ar free to enter on your own, others aren't. This seems to be still the case, reading from the Tripadvisor reviews.

So you must have been there on a very unlucky day! Maybe the number of tourists overwhelmed them. It's holiday season.

Question on Corvey. My understanding was previously that only the Westwork (Carolingian parts) was inscribed. Some reviewers and the Unesco map seem to indicate the whole monastery being inscribed. However, the hosted map by Unesco is still from the official nomination.

So: Is the whole monastery inscribed or only the Carolingian parts?

The boundary of the site at surface level undoubtedly "includes" the area over which the whole monastery is built because it is constructed over the archaeological remains of the Carolingian parts. So -the Nomination file states -
"Textual Description of the Boundaries of the Nominated Property,
The boundaries of the nominated World Heritage Site are defined by the limits of the Carolingian monastery complex, the extent of which has been determined by means of excavations and archaeological surveys. According to current knowledge it largely corresponds to the enclosing boundaries of the existing development of the monastery area formed by ditches."
What we have is a monument which is partly above ground (The Westwork) and partly below ground (the archaeological site)- much of which is covered by more recent (mainly Baroque) buildings. That raises the "technical" issue of whether those above-ground structures which are not Carolingian but are above remains which ARE are actually included or whether the boundary really needs a (or has an implied) 3rd dimension of "height" or "relationship to ground level". An analogy I can quickly think of is whether the ordinary terrace house situated OVER Hal Saflieni is "inscribed" just because it sits within the boundaries over the Hypogeum itself. The answer must surely be - "No".

The UNESCO web site states "The baroque monastery complex contributes to the continuity of the monastic and religious functions of the site throughout the centuries; the reconstruction of the church in its baroque form has allowed the retention of the religious use of the Westwork over time and up to the present day." - but no OUV is claimed for it.

I have (so far!) failed to find any specific text about this issue in the Nomination file

This concurs (although far more eloquently and in a lot more detail) with my own thoughts while organising our visit last year and following the actual visit. We had actually postponed visiting the site from late 2017, because the monastery was closed for the season, not realising that it's not properly part of the listing. (Meanwhile the Westwork has a weekly Sunday service, including over the winter.)