i think most findings are fixed. a fix for the connections (7th => 17 century) is also with els.

i plan to migrate to bootstrap 4 and later versions of all libraries. so the next update will take a while, but not have much to show for it.

I have tested again and it is working, so I guess Els has finished with it.
Thanks!!!

We lost something, Nan. The country page had an automatic link to the Forum page with discussions about that country.

See for example https://www.worldheritagesite.org/country/id/109

I'll try to find the previous version and merge it

UPDATE: fixed again

The "Discuss at XXXX At OUR FORUM" section on the sidebar is repeated. And it seems to me for all countries.

Oops. Sorry. Has been fixed again (will need an automatic refresh of the cache for all country pages to be visible, but Turkey is OK)

Having a look at a few tentative reviews recently, do people think it would be worth enabling ratings for TWHS/ FTWS?

Just as a quick and easy way of working out if there are any particular sites that are worth going out of the way for?

I have been thinking about that too, especially to get nominations for the Missing List 2019

I'd only do TWHS, as you may know I am not a big fan of FTWHS and I do not want to encourage reviews of FTWHS (those are the least likely of any place in the world to get inscribed).

But we have to consider whether it will work performance wise. WHS go first. We'll put it on the (long!) to do list for Nan.

I think it would be interesting and kind of fun, but there is one potential issue. Many tentative sites before inscription are not always "visitor" ready. For example, visitor/information centers, clear boundaries/maps, management plans, reliable funds, multi-language signs, etc. This is particularly true in developing countries. This may result in lower ratings. As we know, its not uncommon for tentative nominations to remain on state party inventories for a decade or more. The visiting experience of a tentative nomination, 10 years before inscription could be a vastly different visitor experience post-inscription.

I am stuck with my excursion into bootstrap 4... Will take a while. Also need to refactor the visit api and the blog post api ... Els, your hand written html code doesn't always validate and tinymce will take care for you of that ;)

Regarding rating tentative sites, I would actually counsel against stars. These aren't sites and shouldn't be confused with them. To me the rating would be a simple favor inscription (or simpler like) y/n (thumbs up/thumbs down). Judgement to be made by every user regardless if site is visited. Y/N could still use Wilson score and would result in a dynamic version of the top missing sites.

Rating ftwhs doesn't make sense to me as they really can't be inscribed.

TinyMCE is driving me nuts when I write a review on my phone. This surely can't just be my phone? When I press the word suggestion the word will just change into some garbage. Anyone experienced the same?

Perhaps a Yes/No is a good way to go about it.

I guess my thinking had gone more towards are the places worth making an effort to visit, beyond their role in the WHS process hence including the FTWHS.

But actually retaining the focus on their chances of becoming a WHS is probably more suitable for a website called worldheritagesite.org :), after all we aren't TripAdvisor, even if I do put more stock in the recommendations coming from this site.

You are writing reviews on your phone?! Congrats... You could just copy paste them into the editor. ;)

Small heads up: Google has implemented a billing policy for maps. Turns out we are pretty close to the threshold. And it then gets expensive fast.

Els and I will keep a tight ship, but potentially we will have to disable the feature for parts of the site or temporarily. I have also put quotas in place. E.g. a single user is limited to view 5 maps per 100s.

Regarding disabling the maps, I think the first to go is the anonymous checklist map. Next in line will probably be the user maps. E.g. we could include user maps only to those users who actually contributed to the community by writing a published review. After that, I am a bit at a loss.

Hmm a bit of a tough one, the maps are very useful. Would moving to Open Street Map get around these issues?

I don't have any experience with it but have increasingly come across it in various guises.

You still need to pay for the tiles. All offers seem to be at the same threshold from fun use to professional.

I will try to move the user maps to another provider. This way we would have double the capacity.

From what I read:



Isn't Place mode all that's really required to show the site locations?