Could we not just stick to this, the way the site works has been fine until now, I'm sure 95% of people are happy.

I don't think there's any risk that anything significant will be done. As you say, it works and there's no need to change much. If SimonRL can - easily - add the ability to list features (such as mills/factories/railways) which are not mines, then that will broaden the use of the site.

But it certaily won't move the focus away from underground exploration 🙂

---

Good good- Agreed it is fine, a fantastic site and very easy to use as well. :thumbup:

we never said it was not a good site. it is a very good site we where just airing some ideas which we think will improve the site for all

---

If its underground, its a mine

No its not its mine 😮

Sorry Sir I couldn't resist it :angel:

(ducks behind sofa to await retribution)

---

(ducks behind sofa to await retribution)

The old ones are the best 😉

---

I'm certaimly quite happy but just to quote a little from The Compact Oxford English Dictionary which alas I find difficult to read these days without the aid of an electron microscope. 😞

A) A large mass of stone capable of being Quarried.

b) To obtain (stone etc) by the proccesses employed in a quarry.

c) To form a quarry to cut into rock,

Etc, etc, my eyes have just packed up.

Mind it could aslo be a heap of dead men, a pile of dead bodies.
😉

---

Thank you for that, Carnkie.
Semantics and etymology are subjects of mine.
Sorry if this gives any offence or headaches.
I have made some initial definitions in the Aditnow dictionary.
I am working from modern dictionaries.
I would most respectfully suggest that if the appelation (eg.mine, when it is clearly a quarry) is incorrect by way of varience to "standard definition" (the above dictionary?) then reason for this should be appended to the image and/or another place directly relating to the workings. These exceptions are of interest, if only from a legal point of view!
A careful and conscientious use of keywords appended to photographs, works wonders! Might this be part of any solution? Far too little attention seems payed to this as well as looking at personal albums.
Other than this, I'm happy with MessrsSrl & V's ideas.

But all that is irrelevent if a certain place has ALWAYS been known as a quarry (for whatever reason) who are we to decide it should not be so named!

Mind it could aslo be a heap of dead men, a pile of dead bodies.
😉

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

if it has always been called a quarry for what ever reason still call it a quarry but atleast state some where that it was underground like a mine some people that are not familer with the way that say the welsh slate quarrys operated as underground operations could become confused by it being called a quarry when clearly it is a mine

---

My overall opinion is leave the whole thing as it is now. Anything that gets altered just for one location I can see just making the whole site less user friendly, to say nothing of more work for Simon.

if it has always been called a quarry for what ever reason still call it a quarry but atleast state some where that it was underground like a mine some people that are not familer with the way that say the welsh slate quarrys operated as underground operations could become confused by it being called a quarry when clearly it is a mine

I think all the tunnels and dark big bits might give most people a hint of a clue!

if you say quarry to most people they would think of a great big open hole in the ground with no top on it unlike some of the welsh slate quarrys

---

if you say quarry to most people they would think of a great big open hole in the ground with no top on it unlike some of the welsh slate quarrys

But in some cases the majority is not necessarily right!

No offence meant to anyone here.
I personally have had no trouble using this site, all the places I consider mines are down as mines, all those obviously quarries are listed as quarries. If I can use this website with no problems, most here should be ablo to as well. All I suggest is the system is left alone, if there is a particular location which causes controvesy to a point of any real importance, then it should be discussed in the forum.

if you say quarry to most people they would think of a great big open hole in the ground with no top on it unlike some of the welsh slate quarrys

Well, you could use the excellent collection of photos on this site to help you get an idea of the nature of the place.


This thread doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, arn't there more important things to be discussed, anyway??

BTW the plural of quarry is quarries not quarrys

sorry boss english is my second language cumbrian is my first. there are more important items to discuss but the development of the site is a big one

---

(ducks behind sofa to await retribution)

The old ones are the best ;)

lol still waiting for retribution, but knowing sir it could involve a rope and a gbfo blade. lol

---

But all that is irrelevent if a certain place has ALWAYS been known as a quarry (for whatever reason) who are we to decide it should not be so named!

The simple answer is We don't. And why should we. But there really is no reason why we shouldn't wonder why some were and some were not. I feel sometimes it comes down to the definition of mining. They vary but basically it boils down to extracting minerals from the earth by any means. But quarry is quite legitimate so why worry about it. Unless of course one considers slate a mineral. And then back to quare one.

---

The general consensus would seem to be that it is ok as it is and doesn't need "developing" like that.

Why change something for a minor problem and in process risk making it less "useable". A bit like the minerals thing when there are "sub classes" of a stone or mineral. Making those seperate would have had the same result, and it was agreed not to go down that route, so to me, the same applies on this.

Ladies and gents

What started off as a discussion about a site feature and possible enhancement has wandered off topic and begun to turn into a discussion about plurals.

I tend to agree on the Mine v Quarry debate that whatever reason a mine might have been known as a quarry that if it were known as a quarry through it's working life then we should refer to it as a quarry; even if in reality it is a mine...

Thank you everybody for the input on the site, and the positive comments received. I do intend to keep working on the site and adding new features, albeit possibly at a slightly slower rate now the site is as evolved as it is.

I'll give some thought to the correct approach to take with this surface remains idea (which I think is a very valid idea I should say) and once I've got some firm ideas I'll throw it open for discussion to be sure the eventual solution is the correct one.

For now, I'm going to lock this thread though incase I get even more confused as to what the eventual new feature should include.

Carnkie, the material about Tin Streaming was very interesting, so please do feel free to start that off in a separate thread if people feel it warrants any more discussion.

Thank you :flowers:

---