Yes, I agree that the specific mineral is not too relevant. However, the purpose of an excavation is very relevant. A place worked for limestone for crushing is going to be very different to a place worked for limestone building stone. Both would be limestone workings, the only differentiation possible would be to call the former a mine and the latter a quarry. There are probably not too many examples of this, but it is one I have come across.

Sometimes it would be good to be able to specify a short list of different metals rather than just select 'mixed'. Levant was worked for copper and tin, but it would be strange to call it Levant mixed mine. As it is, tin mine seems OK although the early Levant miners would take issue with this!

Possibly I did not make my point clearly. I am in favour of having the classification for metalliferousmines as just tin, iron, aluminium etc instead of the plethora of associated mineral types. There would have to be exceptions with minerals such as gypsum etc. where the mineral is used with little refining.

Putting rocks into their basic classifications is surely much simpler than having standstone, limestone, marble, bathstone ad infinitum.

There are so many local names and misnomers with rock types that just add to the confusion. I am thinking of marble where most "marbles" are just limestone that takes a good polish.

I don't know that way the listing has been constructed for the site but is it possible to have either sub-type fields such as sedimentary rock with subfields for sandstone and then be able to further refine the search for building stone, flagstone etc?

It's not an easy one and I wish Simon all the best in trying to keep everyone happy. He will need the wisdom of Solomon for this.

---

It's not an easy one and I wish Simon all the best in trying to keep everyone happy. He will need the wisdom of Solomon for this.

And the patience of Job! 🙂

---

I am not a mineral expert and thus to me its a Copper Mine, Tin Mine, Coal mine, Sandstone Quarry..etc etc, if its worked for other special minerals then put it in the description if its that notable... anything other than basic categories assumes a greater understanding of minerals than people may actually have.... I think a huge list of minerals to choose from will put people off and it also leads to people guessing off the list leading to innaccuracies ... keep it meaningful but keep it simple. People seem to like this site from experience as its friendly, accepting and VERY navigable without being dumbed down Just right in fact... people don't in my experience come here to find a
"ComplexinitediasulphateanhydrateleadH2SO4" mine! ::)

---

For the sites I am mostly concerned with, I am more interested that the sites are listed with a sensible title. So to see Chaldon Sandstone Quarry, or Colley Hill Other Rock Mine is completely alien. If the word ‘stone’ was entered as a generic type, then I could select Chaldon Stone Quarry and Colley Hill Stone Mine, which is at least close to the titles I normally use (Chaldon Firestone Quarry and Colley Hill Hearthstone Mine). So all I ask for at the moment is the type 'stone'.

To answer three posts in one.

I think, as I said before, Patch's idea will make it far too complicated!

I am on the same way of thinking as ICLOK, keep the searchable title simple and add any other info in the mine description. I know some people on here are well into mineral types and sub types, but I suspect the majority are not and are more interested in the mine and what it mined and was known for mining in the past.

I can understand Peter's point and can see that an additional "Stone" heading might be useful in some cases. Mind you, I would probably have just called a Hearthstone mine/quarry a Chalk mine/quarry thinking of Brockham as an example!

Can we not save this until April 1rst?

---

Welcome spitfire. I see you are up and running. 🙂

---

I've just added Kroondal 'other rock' mine to the DB. It's one of the world's leading producers of Platinum. So my list is now, diamonds, uranium and platinum. At the moment I'm pondering the question whether Pandoras Box should be renamed Simons Box. Just to add I agree completely with ICLOK and just to remember Simons original point was about the international connection.

---

Would this appear to be the requirement?

Diamond
Uranium
Platinum

plus two 'catch-alls' for mixed or hard-to-describe mines:

Stone
Metal

---

How about "mixed metal" instead of metal? I would assume most people would know which metal a mine produces, it is only when it produces more than one that I would have thought the problem occurs. "Stone" is ok as there are a lot more varieties as Peter has said.

Don't have any problem with the last two posts.

---

I think it depends on the purpose this list of mineral types serves. If it is to inform viewers what mineral or rock was being worked, then 'mixed metal' might be reasonable. As this descriptor is also used to generated a mine title in the lists then Dolcoath Mixed Metal Mine is not good. But then, Dolcoath Metal Mine is silly too. I think those adding mines should be encouraged to select the PRIMARY metal worked, and add other metals in the mine description box.

A good point(s) and I would add on the current selection page under Mineral/Product it does say:

Select the primary mineral/product from this mine/location

---

A good point(s) and I would add on the current selection page under Mineral/Product it does say:

Select the primary mineral/product from this mine/location

How about (and this will be comparitively easy for Simon to do compared to some other things suggested) modifying the line on the Add a new mine page

From:-
"Select the primary mineral/product from this mine/location"

to:-
"Select the primary mineral/product from this mine/location, if there is a secondary mineral/product please add it in the description box below"

Again guys if we are going to put mines on at a specific location 'mixed' means nothing to me or the general populace ... so to me it should be the mineral TYPE for which the mine was latterly or primarily worked.... once again referencing re-working for other materials,& any other complications in the description....
As for stone it is surely simple to stick to basics like granite, gritstone, sandstone, limestone, gypsum, slate & so on... most people understand that.

Sorry if my simpleness offends.... :thumbsup:

---

Would this appear to be the requirement?

Diamond
Uranium
Platinum

plus two 'catch-alls' for mixed or hard-to-describe mines:

Stone
Metal

I think Asbestos could be added with some justification.

---

I think Asbestos could be added with some justification.

In the case of the diamond mines it was surely a secondary product. Was it ever a primary product in mines? It is something I have absolutely no knowledge of, other than hearing vague mentions of it so am curious to know more.

I'm pretty sure it was a primary product from some West Australian mines - anyone with experience of mining down under who can confirm this?

---

I've just added two mines in California where it was a primary product.

One of them.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Coalinga+Asbestos+Mine?OpenDocument#descr 

---