I think this may have been mentioned before but I am wondering if some facility whereby one mine can be linked to another may be a good idea.

For example I am currently mooching around the Matlock area and doing a bit of research at same time.
There are entries for "Side Mine" , "Riber Mine", and "Wildersley Sough" which are actually all and the same mine, the sough being the drainage adit. There are two entrances to this, I think one may have been drainage adit, the other pump rod adit, there is a survey in PDMHS vol14, no 6 available for download from PDMHS website. A lot of good stuff on Matlock mines by Dr Ford.

The sough is on here twice, once as "Side Mine" and again as "Wildersley Sough"

Anyway, I see a situation whereby a drainage adit may be best known by one name and yet the workings it drains best known by another.
I think this is an important issue and aught to be discussed.

I am aware of course of the 'merge mines' facility, but is this the best way to go?

---

I have to disagree with you about Riber and Side being one and the same Roy, but it does highlight the issue of how best to convey information about intersecting mines driven at different times. Riber Mine was the 1950s decline driven with the intention of working a number of veins eastwards at depth, which cut into the 19th century Side Mine workings and re-used its adit to run pipes from its own pumps - the pipes are still in place. There's no longer a connection between the two due to a run-in not far beyond Starkholmes shaft. There are stopes in Side Mine that were never part of the Riber workings and so I think they should remain as separate entities but should there be a means of indicating that they were linked, perhaps some sort of connects to/used to connect to flag that can be linked to another site on the DB?

---

Although you disagree with me, I agree with you if this makes any sense at all.

I have just modified Hopping and Tear breeches by each referencing the other. It becomes complicated. I think that this is as near as we can get to getting the job right?

---

A difficult one to answer; because I'm sure what will work for one site won't work for another. Or what will work for one person won't work for another ;)

For now, how about just detailing any previous names and the years the mine was known by that name in the mine description?

Or, if there's an entry for a minor feature, e.g. a drainage adit for a mine with it's own entry - then perhaps an album in the mine for the feature?

Not relevant to this topic, but so you know what's happening with the web site...

Regular site users will have spotted I'm re-writing section by section at the moment, and my word is it a big job....

To date I've done the home page, forum home page, the new database/search page, the photo page, supersize page and I've just about finished the album page, then starting next on the mine pages... The new album page and mine pages should go live around mid-March. I then need to look at making the site mobile and tablet friendly, re-write the registration process, and then re-write the forum.

At that stage I can start re-writing the site management admin tools. At which point I can perhaps look at adding mine to mine linking or multiple records for names and eras.

Taking it section by section it's likely going to take about 18 months to complete.

---

Needless to say this is a problem I've run into with Jeremy Wilkinson's gazetteer of the north Wales mines and quarries.

The approach I've taken is that entries that have the same grid reference automatically generate a cross-reference to each other. If the cross-reference actually leads to more information, the cross-reference provides a link to that entry, otherwise it's presented as plain text.

In the case of sites for which the location is not known but which have more than one name, or where specific named features have different locations but should be associated, cross-references can be manually inserted. This mechanism also allows sites that have underground connections or that have been incorporated into other sites to be cross-referenced appropriately.

Dave

Dave, that sounds good to me.

---