First published: Sun 16 Apr 2023.
Els Slots
Aspiring Twhs
Comments
9 comments
Nan
2 years, 2 months ago (Apr 16, 2023)
Not a fan of cramping more sites into the existing maps and pages. If you aren't listed by UNESCO, either inscribed, tentative or former, you are not in yet... Even if we know that you will be added eventually.
Personally, I would create simple and separate map with Google map maker and add locations per mention. Aspiring could also be listed in the country page as text. But not a dedicated page.
Reply
Meltwaterfalls
2 years, 2 months ago (Apr 16, 2023)
I think there is something in this, but separating the wheat from the chaff is very important or else we will just have a list of local authority press releases.
Perhaps there is a step up from the forum pages where they could get lost, and actually listing them on a map alongside inscribed and formal tentative sites.
On a similar note we created a map of the former tentative sites several years ago, could the ATWHS be incorporated on that map?
A sort of Division B for WHS showing the full life cycle of tentative sites.
Astraftis
2 years, 2 months ago (Apr 16, 2023)
Ah, those Cluny abbeys really look like strong candidates! :-)
I would be in for ATWHS, given the strong selection that you sketch. Maybe not necessarily being based on governmental sources, since I have the impression that these might come only very late in the process.
Division B as Meltwaterfalls says is a nice idea: alpha and omega on the same map! I would be glad to add some ATWHS reviews, and I think this could be prompted to be of a slightly different character than others, maybe more "investigative". On the same note, isn't it considered to allow reviews for FTWHSs? Is there a particular reason they are disabled?
Els Slots
2 years, 2 months ago (Apr 17, 2023)
Regarding the reviews / maps for FTWHS - I am firmly against it, as these are the least likely sites that ever will be inscribed as WHS (or have been flatly rejected already). We should look at WHS and those in the running to become one.
I will ponder a bit further about the answers you all gave about the ATWHS, maybe I will start by making them more visible and summarize them more often at the Forum and/or just list them as links in some sort of wheat to chaff order on the country pages.
Meltwaterfalls
2 years, 2 months ago (Apr 17, 2023)
That is fair enough on not wanting to touch the FTWHS, it makes sense when viewing this site as a travel planning tool, which is what it is for the majority of us.
I guess my persepctive was as the WHS process on the whole. Maybe I will update that FTWHS map over the summer and just keep it ticking over as a curiosity.
Out of interest when sites drop from being on the tentative list to being FTWHS what happens to the mapping data?
Astraftis
2 years, 2 months ago (Apr 17, 2023)
Re F/ATWHS reviews, I understand the ratio; but what would you think (to make irreducible reviewers happy :-P ) of allowing them, just with a very strict character count? So they would be kind of telegraphic observations.
Right now, those pages look so lonely and forlorn... I admit I look at them mostly out of curiousity and not to plan trips. But it would be interesting to have coordinates for them, too, and I would like to collaborate as it is possible to me!
Frederik Dawson
2 years, 2 months ago (Apr 18, 2023)
Personally, the idea of ATWHS is problematic to make map or even review since there is no conclusive reason provide or selected site information. Even strong ATWHS may not be accept by national WHC or government, so it is too uncertain. IMO the current list of TWHS is already full of nationalist and political supported sites without clear OUV. Adding ATWHS will double the problem and degrade the quality of reviews to be similar with tripadvisor.