winterkjm
Great if we can move the locations ahead and improve. Minor request:

Please provide all coordinates in decimal format. That's how they are needed and it's really a pain to convert them. Easiest way is to search for a location in google maps and then copy the coordinates from the address bar of the browser. E.g.

https://www.google.de/maps/place/%EB%B6%80%EC%84%9D%EC%82%AC/@36.998941,128.6852709,1 7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x356158fb18ee53b1:0xc3fc0400154742!8m2!3d36.998941!4d128. 6874596

Yields: 36.998941,128.6852709

Yields:
latitude: 36.998941
longitude: 128.6852709

I am happy to announce that I got all 2016 WHS in the database tonight, so they're visible on the maps too now (on the site, country and profile pages). I also checked all countries for sites that were outside the country's borders (so probably misplaced), and corrected them.

The WHS on the maps are 95% accurate now. If you still find any errors, post them in this topic and I will make the change.

About the TWHS locations: meltwaterfalls has a collection of those. I do not post them on the maps that nfmungard created. Maybe it will be a feature some time in the future, but there are so many other things to do.

Well done! Massive improvements to what was already a great site :) Thanks to both els and nfmungard. Enjoy your next vacation Els :) Looking forward to some new reviews of less visited WHS of one of the supposedly most advanced nations of the African continent.

Thanks!
The backpack is filled, I've secured a business class upgrade for the 11 hour flight & (almost) all directions to obscure (T)WHS have been written down. Ready to go now.

2016-10-01_06-03-51 by Els Slots, on Flickr

The maps look fantastic, Els and Nan! Will the main map page get updated with the 2016 World Heritage Sites, too?

I did notice a couple of small fixes based on the map on my user page:

+ Al Ain is missing from United Arab Emirates. A quick glance at other user pages who have written reviews for the site show that it is missing from their maps, too.
+ Some of the special characters aren't working (particularly with umlauts or accents), which leads to shortened names of sites. Ones that I have noticed that need fixing are Göreme National Park, which currently reads as "G"; Parque Güell (for Works of Antoni Gaudí), which currently reads "Parque G"; and The Palau de la Música Catalana and the Hospital de Sant Pau, which currently reads as "Palau de la M". Is this something that must be manually fixed? I've noticed the special character issue is working for some sites, such as Brú na Bóinne and São Miguel das Missões (which is used as the center point for the Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis).
+ The links to the site pages on the user page maps appear to be broken
+ Finally, is there a way to have the official name of the WHS show up first in the title of each location marker on the user pages, followed by the particular component used as the primary component of the World Heritage Site? This feature is already in place on the site pages (i.e., Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis: São Miguel das Missões, and Tongariro National Park: First Component).

As a thought down the line, when site users complete their form for visited WHS, could there be a drop down menu for each site so that a user can highlight which component of the site they'd like to use as the primary component for the WHS on their user page map? I'm thinking of examples like the Australian Convict Sites, which defaults to Kingston and Arthur's Vale Historic Area on Norfolk Island; I'd probably choose either Hyde Park Barracks or Fremantle Prison as the primary component for my user page map.


Have a great trip!

Thanks for the feedback, Colvin. Nan will be back in a week, and I'll let him think about some of the issues.
I already fixed Al Ain (@nfmungard: it did not have a 0 or 1 as main location, but a 2,1) and corrected the names of Göreme and Güell. There will be more of those, somehow they have been corrupted when uploading to the database last year. I'll correct them where I see them. It's only the location names that have been affected, not the full site names.

I was "reminiscing" through my "personal" map of visited sites and noticed that Taxila was missing. It is checked as "visited", so I went to look at the Pakistan country map. I suspect the problem is that Taxila alone doesn't have an identified "lead" location (= Red dot) - on the Pakistan map only orange "other location" ones show and, presumably, personal maps only look for "lead" locations?
Back in 2015 when we did our first big push on getting map data correct I thought we agreed that, all other things being equal, the location Number 001 of multiple location sites would be regarded as the lead location. If it is possible for sites not to have a "Lead" location it might be worth doing a quick check of all other multiple location sites?

A few other "issues"
a. UK country map isn't zooming and starts with a "World view" - there may be other countries whose maps are not set to zoom to the correct location
b. I can't fully work out how transnational sites are being handled in the Country maps. I presume that the "standard" has been to choose one country as having the "Red dot" but to show orange dots in maps of the other countries having locations? But this doesn't appear to always be happening. Taking Rhaetian Railway and Monte San Giorigo shared by Italy and Switzerland. The Italy map shows the red dot for Rhaetian in Switzerland - but no "orange dot" appears in Italy at Tirano. Yet the Switzerland map doesn't show the Railway at all - either red or orange dot!
For Monte San Giorgio Switzerland has neither a red nor an orange dot for the site whilst Italy does have a red dot.
Furthermore - if the "red dot" for Rhaetian railway, when looking at the Italy Map, appears in adjacent Switzerland then I might expect the red dot for Struve (allocated to Norway) to appear across the border in Norway when I look at the map of Finland - but this is not the case. Which is wrong? A problem with showing a red dot for a transnational site in another country as is currently the case for Italy and Rhaetian in Switzerland is that transnational countries are not always as close together. When one looks at a "country map" one really wants to be able to see all its sites clearly shown and equalling the ones listed! So, ideally there would always be a "red dot" on a country map for each of its sites (including transnational ones). But would we want to transfer this across to the "world map"? That would create "red dots" for every Site/Country combination. But can it be done just at the country level?

On the road in Poland now. Just crawled through another silver mine.

Re locations: Easiest is to have a list of visited locations and show all these. Will work on it when back.

Re Zoom: Decided based on dots. For uk dots all over the Planet are the cause.

Re primary Location: i spent a lot less time fearing it would break again anyhow. It didn't, so i will fix the data to show a primary Location per country. And to be a bit more lenient on data quality.

One little "nonsense" which follows from this is that any of us who have visited a Sydney/Hobart etc Australian Convict site are shown on our "personal maps" as having visited Norfolk Island since location 001 for the entire site is situated there! A good example of where the prime location justifies amendment even before any potential introduction of "location visit " recording???

That would be great. I echo Solivagant's concern about the primary site for the Australian Convict Sites being on Norfolk Island. Based on user reviews, a case could be made that Port Arthur, Cockatoo Island, or Hyde Park Barracks would make a better default primary site, based on the number of users who have been there.

As far as leniency goes, on a site like Tongariro National Park, where the components had been so imaginatively named First Component and Second Component in the nomination dossier, I'm thinking it might be preferable on a user page map to use the First Component as the primary site, but simply call it Tongariro National Park, rather than Tongariro National Park: First Component. Does that make sense?

For Baekje Historic Areas, Royal Tombs in Songsan-ri should be the primary site. The original nomination (1994) was only King Muryeong's Tomb, it was expanded to include other Baekje site in 2010.

Find a mistake in Chile page,

Valparaiso is located on Cordoba, Argentina! it should be -33.041865, -71.627111

The annoying thing is that some transboundary sites have only one location. In the case of Monte San Giorgio this has been assigned to Italy. We have to think of a trick how to handle this, it occurs at several transboundary sites.


fixed!


Unesco has 'Gongsanseong Fortress' as location 001. Until we think that's a blatant mistake, I think we should stick to their numbering.
The same counts for the names we use for the locations, how stupid they may sound:

There are 4 locations within Taxila that are missing coordinates, among them the no. 1 location

139-016
Lalchak mounds Punjab, Pakistan

139-017
Buddhist remains around Bhallar stupa Punjab, Paki...

139-018
Giri Mosque and tombs Punjab, Pakistan

139-001
Khanpur Cave Punjab, Pakistan

Would it be possible in the data model to have an explicit "default site" for each country? These can be pre-filled with location number 001 (or the first location in each country) but can be changed later by hand to the most representative site. It would be a bad idea I think to renumber the sites!