Thanks for the feedback.

Unfortunatley I am limited by what the google template allows, so that is the best I can do at the moment, but one of my colleagues has a little more experience than me so I will ask them for some tips.
In a perfect world we could match these up with our existing map pins, but that would be quite some way off and would need a little more thought.


This one is very odd, it must be something to do with the projection of the google map. As you can probably tell it was mapped exactly to the park, but it seems to be off set by a hundred metres or so. I will have to learn some more to correct it. Weirdly this doesn't affect Prague Historic centre as well and they are part of the same polygon, I can't work out why.


I forgot that I left them to one side. Will have to incorporate them when I get a chance.


I'm very well thanks Colvin, I hope you are too.

If someone feels like GPSing... The Dacian limits (T) has more than the 3 sites we show.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6447

Well done on the Welsh map Meltwaterfalls, it clearly shows the Pontycysyllte site to be
more extensive than most people realise.

And in a few weeks you'll be able to update it with the seven component parts of the Slate Landscape WHS 😀

Here you go Nan

FotRE -Dacia
All the sites, colour coded by the type of site

The data is a little dirty and quite a few are missing their name.

I will forward you on a CSV later.

NB. As a reminder for me and incase anyone else is interested I found this great resource (The World Coordinate Converter) for converting coordinates from pretty much any system, to any other system

If there any other serieal TWHS that people are aware of where there are multiple co-ordinates, flag them up and I am happy to try and map them.

I have added them to the map on this website as well: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/tentative/id/6447
Thanks for the data, meltwaterfalls!
Will clean up the ? in the names a bit later today.

Quite cute also how they misspell "watchtower": "whatchtower" or "wachtower"

meltwaterfalls
OK, so I don't know if this the exact place to post it, but with regard to the miniserial TWHS of Emilian vaporite karst I recently wrote a review about, the co-ordinates of the Alto Appennino tosco-emiliano park component is far off (it is probably at the center of the national park, but not on the TWHS spot). A central, representative point for it (also according to official co-ordinates) is N44.3884 E10.4111 (I used the "show address" option of OpensSTreetMap to get those numbers). I don't know about the others, however they are here in the text.

The Fortified Village of Biertan is placed incorrectly:
46.13558870872585, 24.521312809052525

Câlnic is misspelled in the map label.

I noticed errors in components of Slovakia WHS Beech Forests: (1) Udava component (49.177778°, 22.2225°) is completely missing, (2) incorrect spelling of Stužica - Bukovské Vrchy component, and (3) Stuzhytsia component does exist at all, and it is probably confused with Stuzhytsia-Uzhok component of Ukraine, which is located nearby.
Other issues: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/tentative/id/6372 (possible Slovak extension to WHS Beech Forests) has not been yet officially declared. Anyway, it should have only 1 component: Kyjovský prales. The second component mentioned there (Havešová) is the approved part of the WHS.

I am still working on some of the locations. for the Beech forests and both Limes sites. They are difficult, lots of work and different from the locations that were listed when they were TWHS.

I can imagine it is a bit tedious work to count all the Limes and Beeches... Being a self-proclaimed expert on beech forests, I can help you somehow if you wish.

Several components have the approved boundary modifications, but in some cases they split or become "double" components with different names:
- Vihorlat (Slovakia), as a boundary modification
of the existing component part of the same
name;
- Havešová Primeval Forest (Slovakia), as a
boundary modification of the existing
component part of the same name;
- Rožok (Slovakia), as a boundary modification
of the existing component part of the same
name;
- Udava (Slovakia) and Stužica - Bukovské
Vrchy (Slovakia), as a boundary modification
of the existing component part Stužica –
Bukovské Vrchy (Slovakia); (it means the original component split into two new components: Udava and Stužica...)
- Cozzo Ferriero (Italy), as a boundary
modification of the existing component part of
the same name;
- Falascone (Italy), as a boundary modification
of the existing component part Foresta Umbra
(Italy);

There are completely new components:
- Valle Infernale (Italy);
- Prašuma Janj (Bosnia and Herzegovina);
- Forêt de la Bettlachstock (Switzerland);
- Valli di Lodano, Busai and Soladino Forest
Reserves (Switzerland);
- Jizera Mountains (Czechia);
- Chapitre (France);
- Grand Ventron (France);
- Massane (France);
- Dlaboka Reka (North Macedonia);
these are new but very close to already inscribed components:
- Pavari-Sfilzi (Italy);
- Pollinello (Italy);
- Polonina Wetlinska and Smerek (Poland);
- Border Ridge and Gorna Solinka valley
(Poland);
- Terebowiec stream valley (Poland);
- Wolosatka stream valley (Poland);

There are referred components:
- Fruška gora – Papratski do (Serbia);
- Fruška gora – Ravne (Serbia);
- Kopaonik – Kozje stene (Serbia);
- Tara – Rača (Serbia);
- Tara – Zvezda (Serbia);
- Kyjovský prales (Slovakia);

and "deferred" components:
- Aigoual (France);
- Sainte-Baume (France);
- Saint-Pé-de-Bigorre (France);
- Biogradska Gora 1 (Montenegro);
- Biogradska Gora 2 (Montenegro);

and "not inscribed" components:
- Chizé Component 1 North-West (France);
- Chizé Component 2 South (France);
- Fontainebleau (France).

+ already existing components with no changes at all
= total mess...

The UNESCO website had it all messed up as well, also including the country of Montenegro but its locations were not inscribed. They've now adjusted that but haven't come out with a new overview of the locations.

(By the way: I see this Montenegro-error still on the Nomadmania website.)

I think I had all the new locations as they are clear from the IUCN report, but probably need to add the split ones. That still will not get me to the 94 that are now in the site description on the Unesco website. I have 77 now.

Should be correct now.

elsslots
The points is that there is a difference in methodology of counting, sometimes the multiple component with one buffer zone is count as 1, sometimes not.

Summary after 2021 extensions (when possible I am avoiding the component titles)

Albania 2 components
Austria 2 components, but Kalkaalpen has 4 parts (=together 5 parts)
Belgium 1 component but with 5 parts
Bulgaria 9 components (but within 1 National Park)
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 component
Croatia 2 component, but Paklenica has 2 parts (=together 3 parts)
Czechia 1 component
Germany 5 components
Slovenia 2 components
Spain 6 components (3 clusters of double components)
Switzerland 2 components
North Macedonia 1 component
Poland 4 components
Romania 12 components (Cozia is a double component, Domogled-etc is a triple component, Grosii is a double component, but overall number 12 is OK)
France 3 components
Italy 9 components, but Abruzo-Lazio-etc has 5 parts, and the doubled components in Pollino NP and Gargano NP have slightly different names as compered to the map (= together 13 parts)

components with factual errors
Ukraine there should be 11 components, but there is only 10 in the map, because Stuzhytsia-Uzhok is missing. Further, Synevyr has 4 parts, Zacharovanyi Krai has 2 parts (= 15 parts)
Slovakia 5 components is OK, but Udava location is confused with Stuzhytsia and it has wrong coordinates (as I posted above + typo in Stužica-Bukovské Vrchy component)

proposed but not approved components
Monte Negro 1 double component deferred, France 6 or 7 components deferred or not inscribe, Serbia 3 components referred, two of them doubled, Slovakia 1 component referred

All together = 78 components with 94 parts in line with UNESCO! Only Slovakia and Ukraine should be corrected. The rest is more or less OK if we ignore issues with multiple parts counted as one component...