Otherwise we'll have Smeltmill, Smelt-mill, Smelt mill, Smletmill etc...

I know you'll delete this, but can I add Schmeltmill to the list please? For some reason the word "Schmeltmill" makes me laugh...

---

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...

Ahh I see.. I defer to your experience & knowlege in these matters... :flowers: :flowers:

---

Hello All

It sounds like there is a good plan coming together here.

:offtopic: i just have to say i was rather shocked at some of the responces but hopefully it will all be worked out

---

I like Simon's basic idea in his first round up. However, like Col M, I am concerned that having the optional drop down list with too many variations will, like the mineral types topic a while back, lead to it actually being worse to find surface features. Or am I missing something? A bit like the subdivisions of coal, sandstone/limestone catagories of mineral that were rejected for the very same reason. Keeping all the surface items under one list would avoid that. Not that I think there will be many seperate entries.

As regards inclines and tunnels, it depends whether they are in a mine or quarry area, if not, should be listed within individual railway.

I like Simon's basic idea in his first round up. However, like Col M, I am concerned that having the optional drop down list with too many variations will, like the mineral types topic a while back, lead to it actually being worse to find surface features. Or am I missing something? A bit like the subdivisions of coal, sandstone/limestone catagories of mineral that were rejected for the very same reason.

A very valid point John, I think we'll keep it to half or dozen or so of the most key ones.

Hopefully 😉

---

Sorry Simon, I edited it while you were replying, you are too quick by far!.

Could you edit my earlier post on page 1 I seem to have ended up all in a quote box somehow! I don't like being kept in a box! :lol:

Items for the drop down:

Shaft, Trial, though this may have already been decided to not have - can't remember.

Could as mentioned before 'surface remains' cover, items such as smelt mill, crushing mill, wash beds etc... as a generalisation, as the list could become very long..... and overly complicated?

---

I like Simon's basic idea in his first round up. However, like Col M, I am concerned that having the optional drop down list with too many variations will, like the mineral types topic a while back, lead to it actually being worse to find surface features. Or am I missing something? A bit like the subdivisions of coal, sandstone/limestone catagories of mineral that were rejected for the very same reason.

A very valid point John, I think we'll keep it to half or dozen or so of the most key ones.



Hopefully ;)

I agree, the simpler the better.
The ones I would be likely to use would be
Dressing/Smeltmill
Railway/waggonway
Factory

---

Hopefully ;)

I agree, the simpler the better.
The ones I would be likely to use would be
Dressing/Smeltmill
Railway/waggonway
Factory

How about simpler still:-

Mill
Factory
Railway OR Tramway

I don't think a seperate catagory for trials would be helpful at all, just confusing.

Surely shafts would be asociated with a mine anyway? Or am I missing something as usual?

Agreed, let's keep this list simple (but not too simple) but it will be stored as a lookup value (like the mineral / product) list so new ones may be added.

But like the mineral / product list, it needs to strike a balance between what the more knowledgable individual wants, and be new user-friendly, i.e. not too specialised that people without specialist knowledge cannot locate things.

---

I got some pics today from Backbarrow Iron Furnace near Newby Bridge, a facinating place with lots to see in quite a small area of land. I'm aware that it would have surved some of the Furness iron mines, but am not sure which ones exactly, but these days it's quite hard to tell which mine was what in the furness district due to landscaping.

But it would definatly be good to have an album for backbarrow due to its remains 😉

---

I'm just about ready to finish building this new feature now. The groundwork for it is all done, and I should have it finished by Monday/Tuesday of next week.

In summary; we already have an above/below ground option when uploading photos so that's covered.

If a mill or other feature belonged to a specific mine or quarry there is no reason at all why an album can't be created for that mill/whatever in that mine/quarry. That's already covered by the site as is.

This new facility is for surface features / remains that served a number of mines/quarries; for example smeltmills, railways; ports even.

We started compiling a list, but it's got a bit buried in the discussion. What do people want in this list of 'other' features. Does it need to include tunnels and trials as well as buildings and infrastructure?

I also think that some of them should over-ride the requirement to add a grid reference and mineral/product type. I don't see how we can add a grid reference for a railway for example and mineral/product type might not always be relevant.

Suggestions please :flowers: :flowers:

---

Would it be prudent to include Mills but exclude other categories until they are specifically requested ?

---

Probably a sensible idea, but just the like mineral list I'll have to revisit it in some form each time a request is made, so sorting out a near definitive list up front would be ideal. :flowers:

---

Er...

Mill - are Smeltmills the same thing?
Railway / Tramway
Port - I think so, there are certainly some nice archive pics of Port Dinorwic knocking about
Tunnel - There's the one in the Croesor Valley

I think that's the main ones, although there will, no doubt be some oddities: there always are...

---

I don't see how we can add a grid reference for a railway for example and mineral/product type might not always be relevant.

Suggestions please :flowers: :flowers:

I have seen it done. An Archaeological report of Higher Carnkie gave the grid refs for the Basset Tramway. SW 6844 3957 to SW 6864 3967. Of course it does rather depend on it being in a straight line!!

---

I have seen it done. An Archaeological report of Higher Carnkie gave the grid refs for the Basset Tramway. SW 6844 3957 to SW 6864 3967. Of course it does rather depend on it being in a straight line!!

Not neccessarily. All that description you quote means is that those two GRs are where the railway starts and finishes. Where it goes in between those two points is irrelevent! Public footpaths are defined in a similar way and no way are they in a straight line between two points!

I am not sure really that tunnels are required as a seperate item. The one Vanoord quotes for example is associated with the Fronboeth Quarry. Although most tunnels would be associated with a railway of some kind and therefore could be (if needed) be a seperate album under the railway. In the above example it could be a seperate album under Fronboeth.

I think (as with mineral types) splitting things into too many sub catagories will make the site less user friendly, rather than more so.

In the case of such oddities as a tunnel, would it not be easier just to put it with the mine it is related too, and write a good description to keep it clear? I'm just thinking of the possible large numbers of different catagories required for the many different features there are.

In the case of such oddities as a tunnel, would it not be easier just to put it with the mine it is related too, and write a good description to keep it clear? I'm just thinking of the possible large numbers of different catagories required for the many different features there are.

Exactly, thus making it impossible to find things! Keep it simple!

In the case of such oddities as a tunnel, would it not be easier just to put it with the mine it is related too, and write a good description to keep it clear? I'm just thinking of the possible large numbers of different catagories required for the many different features there are.

Yes, I already said that when I said:

If a mill or other feature belonged to a specific mine or quarry there is no reason at all why an album can't be created for that mill/whatever in that mine/quarry. That's already covered by the site as is.

[Exactly, thus making it impossible to find things! Keep it simple!

Quite agreed; this is feature is only for major surface remains that served more than one mine or quarry.

It won't complicate the existing mine/quarry system or complicate adding a dedicated album for something linked only to one mine/quarry.

Any more ideas for the feature list then over and above Vanoord's list :flowers:

---