I'm still trying to get a grasp on the requested new site feature for documenting surface remains as well as 'non mine' locations that justify inclusion; ports, railways, mills etc.

I think I can see how it could be implemented, but I'm looking for a bit of feedback as to whether this could work.

Firstly, I think the issue of 'surface remains' is subtly different to the issue of 'relevant but non mine' locations.

Specifically mines and quarries may have surface remains, most do, so surface remain photos would be just as welcome, and valid, in mine and quarry albums as in 'non mine' location albums.

So perhaps the solution there is a drop-down when uploading a new photograph to indicate whether it is above or below ground? The album display could then have a filter applied to it allowing one or the other, or both, to be selected - just like the display can be refined to show only photos in an album by a specific member.

Certainly several members have said that splitting off surface remains photos into a dedicated album per mine/quarry is undesirable becuase a) it fragments the photographs too much and b) it's nice to see a good selection of photographs together.

So, for the 'relevant but not a mine' locations:

OPTION A

1) Where a surface location or feature justifies it's own dedicated album then an admin can easily create an album for that feature / location - and a full description can be entered into the album description.

2) The mine>album multi-link feature be extended, albums can be tagged to more than one mine already, for example you'll find that most of the Croesor / Rhosydd Through Trip albums are tagged to both Croesor and Rhosydd. But this is currently manual; I could add the facility on the 'thank you' page when a new album is created so that when a new album has been created for a given mine/quarry that it offers all the other mines/quarries with 2km (for example) so the new album can be tagged to them as well.

This gives us a situation where a port, or railway (for example) could have an album created and tagged to all mines/quarries it relates to.

3) The image upload facility could have the same modification at the 'thank you' stage to tag the same photo to any other album in the same mine.

OPTION B

A new main page be added, not sure what it would be called, listing these 'relevant but not a mine' locations, perhaps by their type (e.g. railway) perhaps by their location. Each would have a User Album and and Archive album as with mines. Over time, a search routine could be added if the number of them was justified.

I would work out some method of linking these locations to the mine(s) or quarry(ies) they served so for example a Blaenau mine could be linked to the Ffestioniog railway or the Docks at Porthmadog in order for easy click throughs.

To be honest, I'm not sure which approach is easier, nor more elegant.

Any feedback please?

Lastly, because this is quite complicated, can this topic please not wander off onto caves, mines outside of the UK or general wish lists 🙂 Please :flowers: :flowers:

---

quite like the sound of B but both are good options

---

OPTION C

We have 'Mine', 'Quarry' - so can we not have 'Other'.
So for example Mr Mike clicks 'add a mine' button (Maybe needs renaming to 'Add New Site' or something similar) he then selects 'other' from the drop down menu, names it 'Nenthead Smeltmill'. In there will be the User and Archive albums for peopl;e to upload to. The site can be tagged to a major mining region just as quarries and mines are.

:flowers: Would that work ?? :flowers:

---

OPTION C

We have 'Mine', 'Quarry' - so can we not have 'Other'.
So for example Mr Mike clicks 'add a mine' button (Maybe needs renaming to 'Add New Site' or something similar) he then selects 'other' from the drop down menu, names it 'Nenthead Smeltmill'. In there will be the User and Archive albums for peopl;e to upload to. The site can be tagged to a major mining region just as quarries and mines are.

:flowers: Would that work ?? :flowers:

Pretty much like B that really (just described much more succinctly !). I think we'd need a list of 'Others' to make it more user friendly and some validation so some 'others' didn't need certain inputs - mineral, grid ref, sheet etc (not applicable say to a railway or port).

They could be listed separately, that would be the only really new bit, together with the multi-linking of things.

Adding them to the MMRs is a very good idea though 🙂

---

My option C does not require any new page or any linkings. Its just like adding a new mine except its not a mine or a quarry is 'other'. It stands on its own with or without a grid ref just as a mine does. The listing down the right had side :mines with content' could be split into 3 cols : Mines Quarries Others with content. 😉

---

I think most features that people would want to add could be linked to a single mine or quarry - for example the Penrhyn Quarry Railway's main user was the Penrhyn Quarry so couldn't we just add a Penrhyn Quarry Railway folder in the Penrhyn Album?

I'm sure this would be much easier for Simon than to make any major changes and would also keep the site focused on mines!

Where there is a site which covers several areas couldn't the members apply to Simon or Vanoord who can then decide whether it is worthy of a new folder, needs adding to an existing album or isn't relevent at all.

Another option would be to have an album for a town or area. A Porthmadog album could contain photos in connection with the Port, Railways and Slate works. These could contain information and links to each mine/quarry that used them.

I think having other sites linked in would be cumbersome and make things very complicated.

Anyway, thats my fourpeneth for what its worth.

Simon,

Don't fix what ain't broke!

leave well alone. as the previous poster suggested:

Keep the focus on mines.

---

AditNow is an information sharing resource and discussion forum for the mine exploration community as well as industrial archaeologists, researchers, historians and anybody with an interest in mine exploration or mining history the surface features form an integral part of the archiology and history of the mines so why not have them included in the site like the header on the front page says

Simon most of use would be happy aslong as there is the same pages for the surface bits just like the mine pages which we could search, add pics and write notes about them the finer details can be worked out as we go along

---

Simon most of use would be happy aslong as there is the same pages for the surface bits just like the mine pages which we could search, add pics and write notes about them the finer details can be worked out as we go along

I wasn't aware they are excluded? There certainly seem to be loads of surface feature photographs on here (have posted one or two myself) but the main point of the site, I understood was mine exploring.

I reckon it covers everything quite adequately as it is (with the possible exception of railways and ports but there aren't directly mines are they?)

To sum up why does anything need changing at all? As Wormster said just now "Don't fix what ain't broke". I think there is a real risk of it becoming "un user friendly" if it is split up more.

As for "[i]most of use would be happy", I wonder how many people are actually unhappy? Ben seems to be trying to speak for others rather than just himself, which I think is out of order.

Ben could always start a site of his own covering mine surface features? :lol:

I for one wouldnt mind a section detailing surface features,as Iam no longer able to go underground,it would help in deciding whether to go there or not.As you all no some site have little or no above gground items and miles of tunnels,Bath Stone mines for example where as others have lots to see above ground,like 99% of the Cornish mines and nothing to see or get at below.
Option A seem ok to me,

Laters,Stew.

Time for clarification, I think.

There is no issue or problem with uploading pics of surface features of a specific mine

What initiated this discussion was the inability to upload surface features that relate to more than one mine, specifically the Nenthead Smelt Mill. That surface feature cannot be created as a surface feature of any one mine.

I still think that a site or feature such as a port, railway or mill that served multiple quarries or mines, should be created as an 'Other' item. It could have all of the characteristics of a mine entry eg Grid Ref, Mineral etc.

---

Time for clarification, I think.

There is no issue or problem with uploading pics of surface features of a specific mine

What initiated this discussion was the inability to upload surface features that relate to more than one mine, specifically the Nenthead Smelt Mill. That surface feature cannot be created as a surface feature of any one mine.

I still think that a site or feature such as a port, railway or mill that served multiple quarries or mines, should be created as an 'Other' item. It could have all of the characteristics of a mine entry eg Grid Ref, Mineral etc.

Erm, well in that case, any Admin can create an album entitled: "Nenthead Smelt Mill" and tag it to one of the mines it served. That album can then be tagged (manually, by Simon) to all other mines it served so that it appears under all of them.

All it needs is someone to PM Simon with which mines it should be tagged to 😉

---

OPTION C

We have 'Mine', 'Quarry' - so can we not have 'Other'.
So for example Mr Mike clicks 'add a mine' button (Maybe needs renaming to 'Add New Site' or something similar) he then selects 'other' from the drop down menu, names it 'Nenthead Smeltmill'. In there will be the User and Archive albums for peopl;e to upload to. The site can be tagged to a major mining region just as quarries and mines are.

:flowers: Would that work ?? :flowers:

I like the idea of Colonels suggestion - option C..., it sounds straight forward (to use, to implement another matter?) and should pretty much cover all adits with one gate (ideally unlocked).

In terms of getting it done how difficult would it be, Simon / Vanoord? as your the ones that will have to do it?

---

I think Col Mustard has the answer, surface features for specific mines/quarries are already dealt with, though if there was a box to tick to indicate that your pic was of a surface feature and that could be searched on that would help those looking for an interesting walk rather than an underground trip.
All else that is needed is someway of including relevant features such as smeltmills and mineral lines which served a large number of different workings and for this an 'other' catagory would work fine.
I dont think it would always be feasible to link them to each of the workings they served though, it the case of smeltmills that could be dozens and dozens over their working life. Hopefully those inputting such features will supply some details in the description.

---

Excellent, looks like the Colonel's suggestion of option C is the preferred, and it's the easier to do.

How about this then:

1. (not strictly related) an option is added to the image upload process to indicate under/above ground so the album view can be toggled between the two (sparty_lea's suggestion). This is very easy to do.

2. Add a Mine becomes 'Add a Location' and the drop-down is extended to include other types of location. Some will require a mineral/product and gridref, some will not.

3. If other is selected, to keep the data-driven nature of the site, a type of 'other' will need selected; railway, port, mill etc.

4. At the point of completion, the 'thank you' page, there will be a facility to tag the new location to one or more mines/quarries already in the database. This will link this location from those mines' home pages.

5. I'd probably add a new, relatively simple, page listing these locations; as unlike mines, I don't anticipate thousands of them.

Would that cover it? There's nothing hugely complicated there, possibly a day's work to implement it, and then I think we're covering both the underground exploraiton side as well as cataloguing remains, and of course historical archive shots, both above and below ground.

All I need now is a good list of 'others'. Suggestions please :)

---

Stamp Mill.

Dressing Shed

Port

Incline (would include windinghouses)

Port

tramway

hushing chute

just a few for starters

---

Makes perfect sense to me, although I might suggest that point 1 can be covered by creating a "Surface Remains" album for any mine that requires it.

Likely category candidates:
- Mill
- Factory
- Port
- Railway (to include Tramways)
- Tunnel (eg the one in the Croesor Valley, whose name escapes me this morning)
- Canal?

Re. Wormster's list, I suspect any dressing shed would be attached to a mine, otherwise it would be a mill or a factory?

Would an incline always be part of a railway? My logic here would be that, eg the Penscoins (sp?) incline down to Port Dinorwic would be part of the Padarn Railway and it might be a bit illogical to split it out. No reason why it couldn't have an album under 'Padarn Railway' though.

---

Makes perfect sense to me, although I might suggest that point 1 can be covered by creating a "Surface Remains" album for any mine that requires it.

Yes, but people said they didn't want that. It fragmented the pictures. But yes, it can (very easily) be done. Hence the option to indicate above/below ground at upload time. However I expect the feature will appear in places.

---

I may be missing something here, but to me it seems an over complication to have a list of others in the drop down menu. Why not just have a third option 'Other' (the first & second being mine and quarry).

Mineral/product and gridref, etc could be optional.

---

I may be missing something here, but to me it seems an over complication to have a list of others in the drop down menu. Why not just have a third option 'Other' (the first & second being mine and quarry).

Mineral/product and gridref, etc could be optional.

I know, but having experience of building sites with unquantified 'others', it'd be about a week before it became inadequate. And if we're potentially (later) going to filter by the type of other, then it has to be a drop-down with a lookup ID value, and not a text input. Otherwise we'll have Smeltmill, Smelt-mill, Smelt mill, Smletmill etc...

---