Following on from the thread re the problems with Cornish mines it reminds me that I've been thinking about how best to have Swaledale represented in the database.

A great number of the mines would primarily be known by their group name - eg the AD Mines, Old Gang Mines or Surrender Mine - with the names of individual levels being then recognised within each group. For say the Old Gang Mines you would have Hard Level, Victoria Level the Friarfold (Brandy Bottle) Incline plus various shafts and lesser levels.

As it stands, it is the levels that are entered in the database not the group names. I can't argue with that, the levels were often over a mile apart and although they were often connected underground they were clearly distinct undertakings and not just a group of levels piled one on top of the other working the same piece of ground as in say Ystrad Einion, Aberllyn or Force Crag. It does however mean that the group names can't be added within the database.

Now whilst it would obviously be easy to put 'part of the Old Gang Mines' in the mine description it does mean that the various levels are still in reality unconnected in the database.

The obvious solution to me would be to erase all of the individual levels from the database, create entries for the group names as above then add individual folders for the various levels etc within the group as has been done for Coniston. The major problem I can see with that however is that sooner rather than later Mr Sunday Stroller is going to take a photo of one of the levels whilst out for a wander and create a whole new entry again for the level not knowing the group name.

Any ideas?

I noticed Brandy Bottle in the DB some while ago... Perhaps a way of doing it is as per surface features.. Ie Top level mine with a DB entry for each level and the ability to link the top level mine to the levels involved ... at the point of entering "Old gang mines" it would ask you "is this a major underground feature", thus allowing links to all the different levels just as we do for surface feature, but I think your way would work equally as well.... Databases are tricky things as like Simon says everyone has a different take on it.
Regs Ian 🙂

---

I think the best way of doing this (rather than involving major surface features which would confuse - or writing any additional code) would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me) to multiple mines.

So you could have:

Single overall entry for the 'mine' - which had a description and links to the pages for the levels / trial etc relating to it

An entry per level / trial relating to the names mine

Two albums linked under each level / trial photos

*And* those albums linked to the parent 'mine' so the albums with the same photos would appear in both places and the overall entry would link to the individual entries

Would that make sense?

---

Seems to make sense.
I'll knock up a list when I get a moment if there's agreement that thats the best way to do it.

I expect that that's a feature which could have great use in areas such as Northumberland where the selection of pits which comprise a colliery all seem to be listed separately but that's not my area at all!

The Greenhow area could possibly do with some of the same treatment.

Likewise South and West Yorkshire coalfields, with regards to pits and collieries.

Would it be possible to trial one area of mines to see if it's usable for people?

With this and the parallel thread regarding the SW region I'm wondering if it's time to give the regional editors in certain areas a bit of a refresh?

NOT the SW region - or any other region where there are active editors!

I've resisted doing this for ages because I'd hate to cause any offence to existing regional editors who for whatever reason don't have much time or if there actually isn't anything much left to do in an area of the database.

And I'd not suggest replacing any existing editors, just adding a few more who've got the enthusiasm to sort out issues, duplicates and keep things moving.

Perhaps certain areas have been freewheeling for a while and it's time for some new blood with some new ideas?

---

The data base should be indexed by the individual names of the mines.
The Old Gang mines was in fact a mining company working a distinct area .The A.D. Company mined a different area.
Eventually, after the dramatic fall in the price of lead the Old Gang company closed down and the area was just left with the A.D. Co. and the Faggergill Co. It was as result of this falling lead price the Sir Francis Engine shut down-never to be restarted

Seems to make sense.
I'll knock up a list when I get a moment if there's agreement that thats the best way to do it.

Makes sense to me too.

I think the best way of doing this would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me)

I can see a problem with this if people rely on PM's to notify you of the need to link. 😉

---

There is potential for even more confusion here. What happens to mines (particularly collieries but not exclusively) where they started as individual mines, but then got incorporated into bigger ventures? Do they get listed under their individual names, or the group?
I think firstly, we need to have a naming protocol to cut out the Old Gunnislake/Gunnislake Old issue and then perhaps consider using the description to state "part of the ....."

In my own database, I use the adjective Old/North/New first, then the name of the mine, then the name/number of the pit or level. In the notes section, I add if it became part of .... at a later date.

Whatever, as long as we all use the same format, then it should cut down on the errors.

---

I think the best way of doing this (rather than involving major surface features which would confuse - or writing any additional code) would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me) to multiple mines.

So you could have:

Single overall entry for the 'mine' - which had a description and links to the pages for the levels / trial etc relating to it

An entry per level / trial relating to the named mine

Two albums linked under each level / trial photos

*And* those albums linked to the parent 'mine' so the albums with the same photos would appear in both places and the overall entry would link to the individual entries

Would that make sense?

Yes this idea is probably best :thumbup:

You definitely need to keep the individual names of the mines as John has pointed out or there will be all sorts of problems once you start classifying an area by the major company who mined it, as you would have to do the same for other areas to keep the database consistent. For example the mines of Nenthead would these then become the London Lead Company Mines or Vieille Montagne Zinc Company Mines :confused:

Regarding the regional editors, we can make amendments to the database fairly easily but only if they are pointed out/agreed by people in the first place.

One thing that does take time is moving pictures between albums as you have to locate the destination mine every time within the A-Z database (now very large!) for each picture you move; a batch move function would be very handy.

The suggestion I made a while ago where the Grid Ref is displayed next to each mine in the A-Z lists would also allow duplicate entries to be spotted so much easier 🙂

Jim

---

I think the best way of doing this (rather than involving major surface features which would confuse - or writing any additional code) would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me) to multiple mines.

So you could have:

Single overall entry for the 'mine' - which had a description and links to the pages for the levels / trial etc relating to it

An entry per level / trial relating to the named mine

Two albums linked under each level / trial photos

*And* those albums linked to the parent 'mine' so the albums with the same photos would appear in both places and the overall entry would link to the individual entries

Would that make sense?

Yes this idea is probably best :thumbup:

You definitely need to keep the individual names of the mines as John has pointed out or there will be all sorts of problems once you start classifying an area by the major company who mined it, as you would have to do the same for other areas to keep the database consistent. For example the mines of Nenthead would these then become the London Lead Company Mines or Vieille Montagne Zinc Company Mines :confused:

Regarding the regional editors, we can make amendments to the database fairly easily but only if they are pointed out/agreed by people in the first place.

One thing that does take time is moving pictures between albums as you have to locate the destination mine every time within the A-Z database (now very large!) for each picture you move; a batch move function would be very handy.

The suggestion I made a while ago where the Grid Ref is displayed next to each mine in the A-Z lists would also allow duplicate entries to be spotted so much easier 🙂

Jim

This is a problem I have noticed, for example, Bedlington has several pits listed as Bedlington A, Bedlington F etc etc. The problem is that whilst they may be the official names, you ask anyone up here in Northumberland where Bedlington F pit was and they won't have a clue. Its Bomarsund Colliery. There were several pits run by the Bedlington Coal Company but they had their own names such as West Sleekburn, The Winning, Bomarsund, Old Pit, etc etc. It is confusing but I agree with Jimbo in that the individual names should be kept 🙂

This is a problem I have noticed, for example, Bedlington has several pits listed as Bedlington A, Bedlington F etc etc. The problem is that whilst they may be the official names, you ask anyone up here in Northumberland where Bedlington F pit was and they won't have a clue. Its Bomarsund Colliery. There were several pits run by the Bedlington Coal Company but they had their own names such as West Sleekburn, The Winning, Bomarsund, Old Pit, etc etc. It is confusing but I agree with Jimbo in that the individual names should be kept :)

The known by names can be appended to the formal name as has been done on F Pit the only trouble is it will only show as Bedlington F in the a-z rather than Bomarsund. They will show up in the name search though.

As I understand it those pits would collectively be known as Bedlington Colliery. With Simon's plan those pits would potentially be connected in the database but they would also retain their own place in the A-Z.

Seems ok to me?