As a working hypothesis, I for now have split them into
Yes -Thanks. An improvement I feel.
On another "Category matter"!
This Web site has 3 different sources for details of inscribed "Cultural Landscapes" (CLs)
a. UNESCO's "official list" - accessed via a search on "Cultural Landscapes" on its Web site
b. On this Web site itself
i. under the "Category" for "Cultural Landscape"
ii. via the "Connections" for "Intentionally designed" (called "clearly defined" by us), "Organically Evolved (which is further subdivided into "Relict" and, "Continuing"), " and "Associative". These being the 4 different types" of CL as defined in the UNESCO Operational Guidelines
Now, ideally, one would hope that our data would be fully consistent across these different "views" of CLs – but that is not the case!!
a. UNESCO lists 102 different currently inscribed CLs (beware multi country sites and Dresden which still gets returned!)
b. We have 105 in our "Category List" (Els – there seems to be an arithmetic error here as the Category list states 106 whilst the Category detail page states, correctly, 105)
c. We have 104 under the 4 "Connections" ("Clearly defined" = 12, "Relict" = 25, "Continuing" = 39, and "Associative" = 32). These "add up" to 108 rather than 104 because 4 have Connections for more than 1 type of CL!
And, because of the various "pluses and minuses", the total number of different WHS which are identified as a CL in at least 1 of the 3 "sources" is actually 118!!!
The difference between the UNESCO and our Category List mainly occurs because UNESCO doesn't "recognise" some WHS as CLs even though all the documentation at the time of inscription stated that they were! How much of this is a "mistake" and how much because the exact details of the WHC/ICOMOS conclusions are not available isn't clear across all examples. Our Category list also misses a few WHS which UNESCO does recognise as CLs.
The differences between our "Connection" and "Category" lists occur because we recognise some WHS as being CLs on 1 list but not the other (in both directions!!). Some of those on "Connection" but not "Category" ARE on the UNESCO list and some are not. Also because we haven't assigned a "CL Type" to every CL we do recognise!
Before we dive in and start making changes I think we need to determine a few principles
a. Do we want to bother to sort out these discrepancies?
b. What should determine a CL's place on the "Category" List? Do we make it coincide with the UNESCO list and (e.g) identify other "potential" CL WHS via a "Connection" for "Described as CL at inscription but not on UNESCO list". The alternative is to add all the others - but my preference would be to maintain this hard link to the UNESCO list and deal with other matters "inside" the Web site
c. Do we make guesses ("Informed" of course!) for the missing CL Types? There is no other source of info so it is either that or leave them "untyped"!
It is somewhat unfortunate that the Category List of CLs is as big as it is – the 2nd largest just behind "Religious Structures - Christian". I wondered whether it might be worth considering moving it up a "level". We have "Urban Landscape" and "Natural Landcape" each with sub categories. We could have "Cultural Landscape" with the 5 sub categories being "Relict" etc and take them out of "Connections" (they are just a sub-division of Category after all).
The discrepancies are rather complex to list. If we do decide to attack them it would probably be best if I sent you the spreadsheet identifying them Els.