World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
How do I get to visit Aldabra? www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / How do I get to visit Aldabra? /  
 

WHS Map - the Data

 
 
Page  Page 25 of 25:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  23  24  25

Author TaiTT
Partaker
#361 | Posted: 24 Aug 2021 01:07 
elsslots
Do you know why it was removed

Author wojtek
Partaker
#362 | Posted: 24 Aug 2021 16:28 
TWHS Talayotic Culture of Minorka - Settlement of Torello has wrong location, in reality it's a little bit farther from the airport. Should be 39.880920590500956, 4.220654839105405

Author Ostap1983
Partaker
#363 | Posted: 25 Aug 2021 10:21 
Primeval Beech Forests- map of components is absent on UNESCO web-site now-http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1133/multiple=1&unique_number=2382
I suspect it happened after latest addition. Do you know how to write to their support department to fix that?

Also on our map there is at least 2 sites marked wrongly-
1)Primeval Beech Forests: Zacharovanyi Krai Nature Park (Ukraine)- consist of 2 components- marked as 1 on the map
2) Primeval Beech Forests: Synevyr National Nature Park (Ukraine)- consist of 4 components - marked as 1 on the map

Unfortunately, I can't provide exact location coordinates due to error on UNESCO site mentioned above.

Author elsslots
Admin
#364 | Posted: 25 Aug 2021 10:57 
Ostap1983:
Unfortunately, I can't provide exact location coordinates due to error on UNESCO site mentioned above.

The coordinates can be found here, http://whc.unesco.org/document/155684 page 6. I will add them.

Don't know how to contact UNESCO about this, but they are always a bit slow in adding things. So I think they will be aware and will add later.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#365 | Posted: 26 Aug 2021 01:14 | Edited by: Solivagant 
TaiTT:
elsslots
Do you know why it was removed

Re the removal of any site in/around Antofagasta from the Chinchorro inscription.
I think the answer is indicated by the change in name from the 1998 T List site to the 2021 inscribed one
"Archaeological sites of the Chinchorro culture"
to
"Settlement and Artificial Mummification of the Chinchorro Culture in the Arica and Parinacota Region"

Clearly Chile made the decision to "major" on "Mummification" for the nomination rather than on the more generic "Marine Hunter gatherer" aspects of early pre-Colombian cultures in the Pacific coast area - which get prime billing in the T List description with mummification coming 2nd. The Nomination file lists around 20 Chinchorro sites from southern Peru through N Chile with "mummification" attributes - and none is further south than Iquique. The Antofagasta area was at the southern end of the Chinchorro culture and its archaeological sites are not appropriate. Interestingly the "type site" for Chinchorro culture at "Terraza Chinchorro" where Uhle made his first discoveries also wasn't included. Similarly no site around the Azapa Valley - despite it being an area with many mummy discoveries and another "Mummification museum". Chile was very sparing in selecting locations - if only certain European nominations could have been the same (e.g Limes, Beech Forests and Rock Art!). As has just been highlighted for a "Connection", the site at Colon 10 was only discovered in 2004 so this probably made it easier for Chile to limit the nomination to what is effectively only 2 locations ("Colon 10" is only across a road from, and shares the same buffer zone as the "Faldeos Norte del Morro de Arica")

There is another connection for Chinchorro which I don't think has been identified so far
Battles
The Morro de Arica was the site of the battle in which Chile captured Arica from Peru during the War of the Pacific in June 1880
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morro_de_Arica

Author AJRC
Partaker
#366 | Posted: 26 Aug 2021 03:45 
Ostap1983:
Do you know how to write to their support department to fix that?

I wrote once because there was a page that was not working. They never answered, but the problem was solved. You can try.
I did it from here: https://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-centre/ In the button "Contact" you get a form, you can fill it and send. If it is not the correct site, maybe they can move it.

Author Ostap1983
Partaker
#367 | Posted: 5 Sep 2021 04:48 
Churches of Moldavia- http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/598/multiple=1&unique_number=1728
Object 5- Church of St Nicholas and the Catholicon of the Monastery of Probota.

Checked coordinates on UNESCO site, compared with Google maps and our map. We have to adjust to next coordinates : N47 22 60.00
E27 30 0.00

Author elsslots
Admin
#368 | Posted: 5 Sep 2021 05:53 
Ostap1983:
Checked coordinates on UNESCO site, compared with Google maps and our map. We have to adjust to next coordinates : N47 22 60.00
E27 30 0.00

I don't really see it. When you put these coordinates in Google Maps, it shows a random field.
While the location that we have, shows the actual church: https://www.google.com/maps/place/47%C2%B022'30.3%22N+26%C2%B037'23.7%22E/@47.375078,26.6210723,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d47.375078!4d26.623261

Author Ostap1983
Partaker
#369 | Posted: 5 Sep 2021 08:38 
OMG, you right. The thing is there is two villages called Probota, and my assumption was that UNESCO got their coordinates straight. But I checked dossier with photo and our map is a correct one . By the way, dossier has a name Churches of Moldavia - Church of St Nicholas and the Catholicon of the Monastery of Probota Clarification / adopted . I can't believe they added corrected files and did not care to fix the coordinates. How awkward it is? And how many people actually drove almost to the border with Moldova to find nothing, I wonder..

Author Astraftis
Partaker
#370 | Posted: 6 Sep 2021 19:08 | Edited by: Astraftis 
I have some corrections/proposals with regard to the sites where I have recently been.

Beech forests
I have seen the meticuolous work that has been done by Pavel and my intention is not to further delve into the forestal depths, but I just wanted to point out that the Jasmund point on our map is slightly off: it may be at the center of the Jasmund natural park, but it is not at the center of the UNESCO area! Here you can clearly see the difference.

Two proposals:
1) using the coordinates of the Königsstuhl (e.g. 54.57311N, 13.66192E) as symbolic place;
2) using a more indefinite centrale point like e.g. 54.5556N, 13.666E.

Moler landscapes of the Liim Fiord
(Small note: Liim fiord is an obsolete/archaic orthography for Limfjord, only they know why they chose that.)

There is some confusion in our data, and we might add some significant points. Provided that the current file does not explicitly list exact locations, it seems that the intended area are in general all moler deposits in and around the islands Mors and Fur. Some locals working in museum and tourist offices pointed me to two specific locations, though: Knudeklinterne on Fur and Hanklit on Mors. These places are prominent among the involved cliffs, but it is very doubtful that a future core zone will cover only them. Given this, comments and corrections:

- Ertebølle hoved: coordinates are markedly wrong! The site is not offshore between mainland and Fur, but on the coast near the eponymous village. Proposed coordinates: 56.80617N, 9.16939E.
- Hanklit: this also appears slightly offshore, but it should be taken onto the nearby coast.
- Skarregaard: now, this is somewhat confusing. This place is actually cited in the current documentation, but is actually a farm and, from what I have been able to read and see, it has no connection to moler or extracting activities whatsoever. It seems to be cited only regarding conservation issues. But my bet is that Skarre(gaard) is actually intended for the whole area around it, so...
- Fossil- og molermuseet: ...this should be added instead as the focal point of the area and as it is near a big quarry where visitors can merrily hammer themselves i nsearch for fossiles! Proposed coordinates: 56.94346N, 8.87335E.
- Ejerslev klint: this can "complete" the picture on Mors (it is on the local maps, but appears to be much less popular). The site is partly created by a wuarry. Proposed: 56.9209N, 8.9188E.
- Knudeklinterne and Østklinten: the two most relevant natural moler sites on Fur. Proposed coordinates respectively:
56.83751N, 8.96028E and 56.8438N, 9.0053E.
- Bispehuen (or Bispehoved; the first form is in the local dialectal variant): I don't think it's relevant, if not to represent the extraction activity. It's a rest of mining activity and it's rapidly collapsing: I was told it won't be there anymore given 2/3 years, and I could indeed see a big difference with respect to older pictures. A more central point for Northern Fur might be 56.834091N, 9.008555E.
- Silstrup and Junget: Only cited along Ertebølle in the documentatio, without further details. They seem to be of lesser importance, but probably deserve to be on the map. With the help of this site (which has other coordinates, too), I located Silstrup at 56.925013N, 8.660719E, while Junget seems to be at 56.79004N ,9.09876E, judging from this (in particular the point 3 molerskrænt, the "moler slide"), actually near Eskov and Junget øre.

Danevirke
The offshore work point is... off. It should be at Reesholm, so like 54.5143N, 9.6372E.
Could it be worth setting a point for Waldemar's wall ,at ca. 54.48175N, 9.49578E? It's not one of the official locations, maybe, but it's significant.

Author elsslots
Admin
#371 | Posted: 7 Sep 2021 12:29 
Thanks for the research, Astraftis! Especially for your detailed work on Denmark. I think we don't have an active community member from Denmark, so you can become our honorary Dane!

I've added most of the updated and new coordinates. It may take some hours to show on the maps due to the caching of the website or your browser. I've refrained from adding the additional location for Danevirke that you suggested, as we stick to the official locations all across the website. One day we will get to add "points of interest", but that will be a separate project (maybe one of interest for this winter).

Author Astraftis
Partaker
#372 | Posted: 13 Sep 2021 19:27 | Edited by: Astraftis 
elsslots:
Thanks for the research, Astraftis! Especially for your detailed work on Denmark. I think we don't have an active community member from Denmark, so you can become our honorary Dane!

I am honoured to be the honorary (and temporary) Dane, thanks Els! 🇩🇰🥳 More on that in the small report I want to write in the apposite Denmark's thread.

Anyway, again about moler and Limfjord (yes, I really liked the area): going through my pictures I found this, from the museum. So, this more or less confirms the current picture, and:
- the outcrops of Sundby (maybe 56.8891N, 8.6997E?) and those of Skærbæk (??) might be added;
- only the Skarrehagegraven near the fossil museum is signalled, and effectively not the Skarregaard farmstead.

* * *

Going to other fossiles, Italy has added to its T-list the Eocene marine diversity of the Alpone valley, truly a tough competitor to the Limfjord in this niche. The dossier claims there are 39 fossile deposits, but they are not all listed explicitly yet. Anyway, in the meantime I'd suggest to mark on the map the following:
- Bolca: the most famous location which gives the name to many findings (i fossili di Bolca); there is the important fossil museum (here the link as a suggestion as one of the "official websites"). Coordinates: 45.59435N, 11.21013E.
- The Pesciara, I quote, the "absolute icon of Italy's paleontological heritage": near Bolca, it can be visited. Coordinates: 45.60043N,11.22211E. It seems that many other sites are concentrated nearby, like Monte Postale (45.60311N,11.22243E).

I have difficulties in locating other sites; some names seem to be too local (where the heck is Ciupio?!). I found this map, but many coordinates seem to be very off (like for Monte Postale).
Still, Monte Duello (45.47792N, 11.27797E) is cited twice in the dossier and it might help giving an idea of the total north-south extension of this site collection for the time being.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#373 | Posted: 14 Sep 2021 03:51 
I think the map marker for the "Church of Panayia Chrysokourdaliotissa" is slightly off to the north of where the church is actually situated.

Page  Page 25 of 25:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  23  24  25 
How do I get to visit Aldabra? www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / How do I get to visit Aldabra? /
 WHS Map - the Data

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑