Hey, good map found!
I think we are there now and have all the locations covered.

Out of interest which source did you use to establish that these 2 locations "overlap"??
I have looked at the (very unclear!!) maps of the Rock Art sites which appear to come from an Annex of the Nomination File .
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/874/multiple=1&unique_number=1026
It is divided into sections by Province and each section consists of a series of maps identifying the inscribed sites by small circles. The section for Catalunya has consecutive maps for these 2 locations. Each contains a circle and a reference number - in these cases B/4 and B/5. The 2 circles are certainly very close to each other but as they don't actually provide an accurate plan of the inscribed areas I couldn't work out whether they are fully contiguous or whether they even overlap!!

I just looked again at that 2015 boundary clarification pdf on the Iberian Rock Art page.

I hadn't realised it was formatted in a way that the data could be extracted, so I have done that and hopefully will get a chance to clean it and convert the co-ordinates so we can tidy up a lot of the problems we have with it at the moment e.g. the big batch in the sea off the Alicante.

Jasam, it may be good to get some of your local knowledge on it to see if the cleaning has gone to plan or not.

I have been there 3 or 4 times. The two locations are about 40 meters apart and as you can see on the 2015 boundary clarification pdf, their core zones are radiuses of approx. 250 meters.


The thing is, when UNESCO or whoever extracted the data from the original pdf submitted by the state party, many "ls" became "Is", "0s" "Os", etc. Which partly explains why so many locations are so off (of course, many names are wrong too!).
The big batch in the sea off Alicante is easy to explain: when they converted the UTM coordinates to Lat/Lon they got the wrong grid zone (31 instead of 30 I think).
The good news is that I have already done the dirty work (including typo correction). I can send you the kml file, though it needs a little further cleaning. Only 18 locations are 100% correct (those I have visited), the others are always approx. 200 meters off (sometimes much more).
PS: I suspect the state party to be deliberately vague about the locations (many of them have been vandalized in the past).

Is it being suggested that the circles on the map are "scaled" to 250m? Surely we can't regard the circles on those maps as accurately representing the "radius" of the core zone? They are just a convention - presumably centred on the location - solid black to represent the site/ref number actually being described and "clear" to indicate other inscribed locations on the same map. So - locations B3, B4 and B5 are all shown on the same maps as solid or clear on 3 versions of that map according to the one which is being referenced. And they are all the same size on the maps I have looked at whatever the location! I do not believe they represent an actual radius of approx 250m

I believe you're talking about the 1998 doc. I'm talking about the 2015 one (at the bottom).

Thanks - I see what you mean.
This new map and its accompanying data certainly have their own inconsistencies - e.g the 2 Abris you have identified have each been given the same X/Y coordinates - but these coordinates actually represent the centre of the circle rather than the exact locations of the Art. Yet they have each been given different Z coordinates (Alt above sea level) - totally illogical!!! The EXACT coordinates of each of the locations are only shown on the UNESCO list.

A quick look at another Province - Almeria -shows a different approach, whereby the exact location of a Rock Art location within a red inscribed polygon area is identified by a black dot and each of these has a separate and accurate X/Y/Z set of coordinates. Lavadero Tello II/III/IV and V for instance are all separate locations, and DO have individual X/Y/Z coordinates but all share the same inscribed polygon!

It seems quite common therefore for an inscribed area delineated by a single circle/polygon to contain several separately numbered Rock art locations. It would certainly have been better for everyone if the (enormous) number of separate locations/numbers had been reduced so that each represented a separate inscribed "area", albeit sometimes/often containing more than one rock art location. I suspect this came about because, back in 1998 when they were first inscribed, Spain gave each rock art location a separate location and number and it was only later when it was asked to clarify inscribed boundaries that it realised that it would have to "create" inscribed areas which included several art locations since these were often so close together. I.e The circles and polygons delineating "inscribed areas" were an afterthought. Unfortunately we don't seem to have access to the original Nomination File - but the layout of the 1998 maps which we do have would seem to indicate that no exact boundaries for each inscription had been identified - hence the adoption of the black and clear "spots" to identify each one. The AB evaluation also contains no section/comment on "Boundaries" which is nowadays an essential aspect of a nomination and its evaluation. I also see no Buffer Zones??

Oh yeah it would be good to see it. There is a reasonable amount of additional information on the 2015 maps, have you found their descriptions of how accessible the site is or whether it is on public/ private land to be accurate.

How far off have the co-ordinates been in your experience? From looking at the information given it would seem strange if they were not accurate as they have drawings of the site thus I assume have been surveyed in detail. But like you say there could be some reasons for making the precise location fuzzy due to potential vandalism.

I think I will add this too.