I would do this (after I've finished transferring several hundred web sites, slept for a week, then caught up with work) by:

- adding some extra columns to the mines table for sub-type products, thus we might have:

type1 | type 2 | type 3
lead | silver | something else

(ordinarily I'd do this with a link table of mine < > mineral, but they're more relevant where you've got one to many, whereas here we've got one to a few)

The mine would be classified as the primary product, and this would be used to build the reference:

Cwmorthin-Slate-Quarry for example

But if 'cwmortin' (in this example) also produced gold then it would state that on results pages, state that on the mine information page, and it would be findable through searches for any product extracted. Just as mines can be found on their name and alternate name.

I wouldn't add a classification called 'Lead/Silver' because that's not a single product, so people wouldn't know to search for 'Lead', 'Silver' or 'Lead/Silver'. 'Lead/Silver' would then beg 'Lead/Zinc' and who knows where we'd end :lol:

Adding 'other' and a free text entry would be a disaster! We'd potentially have multiples of the same 'other', variant spellings of them etc.

:flowers: :flowers:

---

Why not dispense with the drop down box altogether and leave it to the contributor to enter the mineral?
Clay is another broad church, china clay, ball clay, fire clay and so on and then there is china stone a different product altogether. to enter a pit simply under clay tells nothing of that pits produce

---

I agree with Simon- too much flexability in what to call the mining product would be a disaster! was it 'slate' or 'roofing slate'... :blink: being able to add a secondary product would seem to be the best idea (of course- that's easy for me to say when i don't have to do it! :lol: )

---

I am starting to wonder what I have started here!

On reflection though, it could well be an area deserving some attention. Such as dropping the concatenation of mineral product from the mine name, and possibly fitting it in somewhere else.
Another thought, and I believe that this has been commented on, is the term "mixed" as conveying nothing. I have to agree with this.
What of listing the minerals extracted as a string concatenated from multiple choices separated by say a slash, so for example Cwmsymlog would be the mine, with a second line "Economic minerals: Silver/Lead"

An instruction for the person entering the mine to add the minerals extracted in order of either tonnage or economic importance. After all, at the end of the day the regional editors will clean it all up if someone makes a mess of it.

---

Hi Roy, to me they are known as silver/lead mines, probably because that is what they are mostly refered as :thumbsup:

---

I have to say that this is the only thing that makes me cringe about AditNow. To see a mine I entered in good faith as "Betchworth Hearthstone" flagged up as

"Betchworth Hearthstone Other Rock Mine"

And there is precious little that can be done to avoid it.

😞

I seem to think this subject (or variations thereof) may have come up before! Quite a few times in fact!

If you make too many variations you end up not being able to find anything!

Roy nearly all metaliferous mines contain lots of different metals. If we take Smallcleugh as an example it started as a lead mine and finished it's life around 1920 as a zinc mine-albeit much of the ore material was waste from the flats. If it stated as a lead mine it should be described as such.
Lots of other metals will be in the zinc -cadmium etc we cannot list all the economic minerals present in a mine it will clutter and complex the indexing.

I have to say that this is the only thing that makes me cringe about AditNow. To see a mine I entered in good faith as "Betchworth Hearthstone" flagged up as

"Betchworth Hearthstone Other Rock Mine"

And there is precious little that can be done to avoid it.

😞

What should it be classed as?

---

IIRC that very derivative was also part of the discussion in the past. Basically it is a type of chalk.

Ah! Thanks!

I take all the comments, complains and criticisms onboard. I try to code what I can, but I have to balance the requirements of the experts with that of people using the site as a resource who might not know to search for very specific product types.

---

I wouldn't try to classify it - could it not be optional?

In that particular case, most people call it

"Betchworth Hearthstone Mine"

i.e. that's its name anyway.

If you leave the mineral out of the name, you get

"Betchworth Other Rock Mine" which is an abomination!

I wouldn't expect "hearthstone" to be a mineral in the drop down list - the list would need to be huge to include all possible minerals and there are probably only half a dozen hearthstone mines in the whole of the UK.

If no mineral is selected, why not just use whatever is entered and ignore the mineral classification when generating a composite name.

In some parts of the site you also get the odd situation where tramways, for example, are called "mines"! I can't recall where I've seen it but it does happen.

IIRC that very derivative was also part of the discussion in the past. Basically it is a type of chalk.

Arrrrgh! NO!!!!!

John - I can sell you a book 😉

I wouldn't try to classify it - could it not be optional?

In that particular case, most people call it

"Betchworth Hearthstone Mine"

i.e. that's its name anyway.

If you leave the mineral out of the name, you get

"Betchworth Other Rock Mine" which is an abomination!

I wouldn't expect "hearthstone" to be a mineral in the drop down list - the list would need to be huge to include all possible minerals and there are probably only half a dozen hearthstone mines in the whole of the UK.

If no mineral is selected, why not just use whatever is entered and ignore the mineral classification when generating a composite name.

In some parts of the site you also get the odd situation where tramways, for example, are called "mines"! I can't recall where I've seen it but it does happen.

Maybe the answer is to hide 'other rock' if 'other rock' is selected.

---

If it stated as a lead mine it should be described as such.

Problem here John is that some mines were started in order to extract one economic mineral, but finished up being a major producer of another. A lot of mines in mid Wales were 'started' in the Bronze Age to extract copper from near the surface; it was not reserves in those days but ease of extraction, so where would that leave us?

I now wonder whether we are going to come up with a mutually acceptable solution to this one, Peter Burgess makes a very good point and I think that there has to be a better way than what we have.

Parc Lead Mine, (Llanrwst) is always known as that so we end up with "Parc Lead Mine Lead Mine", so it has to be abbreviated to "Parc Mine". "Isn't that Minera" they will then say

---

re Hiding "Other Rock"

Yes, I suppose that would have the same effect! In which case, if you wanted to put the rock type in the name, you could do so and it would look good when displayed in composite stylee.

We could have, for example, "Fullers Earth" mines set up as

"Copyhold Fullers Earth"

Mineral type "Other rock" instead of "clay"

which would be displayed as "Copyhold Fullers Earth Mine" which is excellent. :thumbsup:

re Hiding "Other Rock"

We could have, for example, "Fullers Earth" mines set up as

"Copyhold Fullers Earth"

Mineral type "Other rock" instead of "clay"

which would be displayed as "Copyhold Fullers Earth Mine" which is excellent. :thumbsup:

But, if Fullers Earth is a type of clay (no knowledge on subject) then surely clay should be used in dropdown?

Roy why did you start this? :lol:

Roy why did you start this? :lol:

It seemed like a good idea at the time

---

But, if Fullers Earth is a type of clay (no knowledge on subject) then surely clay should be used in dropdown?

Because tin, or copper, or gold mines are known as such (not as "base metal" or "noble metal" mines), and similarly most "clay" mines are known generally by their more specific rock types

"China clay", "ball clay", "fireclay" and so on.

Even clay pits for bricks don't sound that odd described as "brick clay" pits even though the former is more common. With the option of using "other rock" as a means of being able to put in whatever you know sounds best, then at least they will be described well, even though the category they will end up lumped together in is "other rock", which is no big deal.

John - I'd be happy to introduce you to the fascinating world of post-palaeozoic economic geology if you are ever tempted away from the ancient stuff - loads to see and loads to learn!

The problem I have with this (and I'm not denying it is strictly more correct) is:

1, Does the site then becomes super-cliquey (something I think for all it's failings it's managed to avoid), and only of interest to people who already know everything about everything, and

2, Do we then end up running the risk of having even more duplicates (and so more for the regional editors to mop up) where people have searched 'clay mines' for example, not found what they're looking for and added the mine without first searching all the other types of clay mine?

---