This nomination should make me happy, because it includes several sites that I like and visit at every opportunity if I am in Italy such as Siena and Viterbo. However, this is not the case and I am rather confused, I would say. I am aware of importance of Via Francigena in midle ages, and I noticed, for example in Montefiascone and other small towns of central Italy, that it is still somehow active as a modern incarnation into a tourist trail. It is certainly positive that one can move from one town to another by walk (that I really like), especially in Italy where everybody prefers car to walking...

I am however afraid that the testimony of Via Francigena is corrupted by this nomination and it will not certainly increase popularity of long-range walking. My suspicion is that it simply helps nice but not so important places in Italy to be inscibed as WHS. From the list, I visited Fidenza (nice small town in Po region with cathedral with fine sculptrural decoration on western facade), Siena (great WHS), Viterbo (one of my favorite towns in Lazio region), and obviously Rome.

Besides Via Francigena, there are comparable "sites" already in Italy: the road network from ancient Rome such as Via Appia (I can imagine OUV in this case), Camino S Francesco (I walked from La Verna to Assisi, but it continues to Rome), and also routes going to Palestina used by pilgrims and also crussaders among others (they usualy travel to Palestina via Bari or Brindisi). Another atractive place for pilgrims from entire Europe is Monte San Angello in Gargano (already WHS).

All in all, I do not support this nomination. I include photo of my favorite place in Viterbo: Fontana Grande from 13th century, because I am pretty sure that pilgrims walking on Via Francigena might be thirsty...