World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /  
 

Corrections

 
Author elsslots
Admin
#1 | Posted: 26 Sep 2008 07:54 
At this year's WHC meeting, the borders of several older WHS were clarified for the first time. See URL.
Someone has gone bravely through them, and suggested a number of corrections to existing connections.

For Budapest: The Great Synagogue, the Eiffel Railway Station, St. Stephen's Cathedral are definitely outside the core zone of the WHS. The Gül Baba Tomb is doubtful too, but I let it stay on for the moment (any other sources than the map mentioned in the link above?).

For Dresden: the Altmarkt is outside

Author elsslots
Admin
#2 | Posted: 5 Oct 2008 13:22 
And some more corrections:
- Museum Island occupies only half of Spree Insel, so has to be deleted from "Cultural Sites taking up an entire island"
- And the same for Stadamthof (Regensburg)

Author m_m
Partaker
#3 | Posted: 5 Oct 2008 21:53 
similar to some info on the size of whs found on the whc.org site, some numbers have typographical errors. for example, salzburg's core zone is indicated as 263 ha. but in the accompanying map, the area is 236 ha. (the one in red font color).

Author Jurre
Partaker
#4 | Posted: 2 Feb 2022 07:03 | Edited by: Jurre 
Can the "Full name" under "Site info" be corrected for Chiribiquete National Park?

The full name used on the Unesco website is: Chiribiquete National Park – "The Maloca of the Jaguar"

Author elsslots
Admin
#5 | Posted: 2 Feb 2022 18:12 
Jurre:
Can the "Full name" under "Site info" be corrected for Chiribiquete National Park?

done!

Author Jurre
Partaker
#6 | Posted: 31 Jul 2022 20:03 
For Banska Stiavnica, something went wrong under "Site History" for the Name change. It now states From "Bansk.

Author elsslots
Admin
#7 | Posted: 1 Aug 2022 02:34 
Jurre:
Name change. It now states From "Bansk.

It did not like the á

Author Alikander99
Partaker
#8 | Posted: 15 Aug 2022 11:53 
Hey, surely It's already been said, but "Romanesque Cultural Enclave in the North of Castile-Leon and the South of Cantabria" in spanish t-list seems to be misnamed in the original UNESCO page. As far as I could father It seems the proposal was originally for a set of romanesque churches in southern Cantabria and northern Castille, but now It's used to represent some Frontier romanesque towns way further to the west.
What's Up with that?

Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /
 Corrections

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 ®
 ⇑