diff --git a/tutorial/22-areas.osm b/tutorial/22-areas.osm
index 7f26ed9..e86cbc2 100644
--- a/tutorial/22-areas.osm
+++ b/tutorial/22-areas.osm
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 /*
-This query finds all natural rock formations within Uluṟu-Kata Tjuta National Park.
+This query finds all natural rock formations within Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park.
 
-The results include Uluṟu, Kata Tjuta, Taputji and Mala Kata.
+The results include Uluṟu, Kata Tjuṯa, Taputji and Mala Kata.
 
-Kata Tjuta is a more complex rock formation and is represented as a relation in
+Kata Tjuṯa is a more complex rock formation and is represented as a relation in
 the OSM database. So if we had used only a `way` query then it wouldn't be present
 in the results. The `wr` query lets us do a type agostic query to find the areas
 of interest.
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ using the standard range of filters.
 For example  in this query we're finding an area based on its name.
 
 ```
-area["name"="Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park"]
+area["name"="Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park"]
 ```
 
 The advantage of using areas rather the original ways and relations is that the API and
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ interested in a named set. I find this a bit clearer in practice.
 Here's how this would look, using a named set called `ourArea`:
 
 ```
-area["name"="Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park"]->.ourArea;
+area["name"="Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park"]->.ourArea;
 (
  way(area.ourArea)["natural"="bare_rock"];
  >;
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ relation(area.ourArea);
 @title 22 - Areas
 */
 //find any area with this name
-area["name"="Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park"];
+area["name"="Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park"];
 (
  //find any ways and relations that are WITHIN that area, filtering them by their tag
  wr(area)["natural"="bare_rock"];