China clay pits are what they are always known as, they are of course open cast mines.
I think canal could be left out, as transport would cover this, No-one would dream of road for instance as a classification

---

I'm no doubt being a bit thick here but it's not clear to me how, in a practical sense, transport would work as a category under 'identify as'. Tramway, railway, canal seems fairly logical.

---

I've had a couple of PMs already saying please don't add 'transport', Canal and Railway are fairly unambiguous. I can't see the need arising regularly to add any other types (especially given there is Tramway which can include plateway and wagonway).

---

The reason I suggested it was: how does one describe a photo' of horses/traction engine pulling a boiler to a mine. there are hundreds of photo's like this.

---

Don't agree on this one, Personally I would put in Canal and Railway and Tramway and transportation (to covers roads, ropeways and whatever else that crops up)

I think transportation as a general heading will be to general because imagine how it will look

O'Fingles Tin Transportatation

compared to

O'Fingles Tin Tramway much nicer and very clear!

The transport categories I think are fine as they are unambiguous plus some people just want to find a railway not a list of transport!

::)

---

Transportation's fine by me

---

Things can look pretty weird at the moment with titles like "Fred's Other Rock Mine" ! So let's not try to be too clever and just have railway, tramway, canal etc.

Imagine "Fred's Other Rock Transportation Feature".

It's stupid.

I have one slight problem although I agree essentialy with what has already been written. Given the International aspect many US mining areas have independant Mills. In other words in areas like Nevada and Colorado where there were many gold and silver mines in a very small areas they used the same mill. I suppose the easiest way is don't bother. Although on occasion they became US monuments

---

I think there will always be exceptions to the rule, and in the case of an independant mill serving many mines then I can see no reason for excluding it from the DB. This would only be like the independant smelting and blowing houses that served the mines. The operative word here is INDEPENDANT. What we have seen recently is the inclusion of a mines mill as a seperate concern and by default this would need to be extended to ALL mines on the DB....a clearly ridiculous notion. Also Shafts belong to mines, they are not independant entities; I don't remember seeing any references to in Dines to 'Lyle's Shaft Mine' for instance.
I also noticed the inclusion of Roseworthy Hammer Mills who provided tools for the many mines throughout Cornwall and elsewhere. Not a mine or a smelter, but a merchant involved with supply. Should we also include Dunkerton Colliery in Bath for providing the coal, The Camborne Gas Company, or indeed A&G Treglown of Pool, drapers, outfitters and general merchants who supplied duck suits to the managers of South Crofty?
Seriously though, there is a need for some clear and distinct thought here, and the application of rationality. If you want a clunky disordered DB, then continue, but for me a mine is a mine, and by that token alone, a mining database should be just what it says....QED !

---

I think, hopefully, we can conclude this discussion to everyones satisfaction. I actually agree with all that you say. The 'mistakes' of the past were mainly due to a misinterpretation of the meaning of the MSF. The inclusion of Lyle's, for example, was an attempt to interconnect the history of the Basset mines from Carnkie Bal to the end and Lyle's served three mines. With hindsight, wonderful thing, this was wrong as it can more correctly be done within the mine entries themselves.
I have deleted Roseworhy and in future if I make any additions to the DB they will conform to the consensus opinion.

---