Just noticed, when you go to show all mines A-Z, then select mines with content, the b is a z.

On another note, I have been wondering how to index and create an album for the surface features at Nenthead. There is the smelt mill, compressor houses, powder houses..... which are not all related to a particular mine. I am sure the same applies to many other sites - any thoughts?

I was thinking whether some other categories could be added to the Mine or Quarry selection, such as Shaft, Tunnel, Surface Remains etc... and maybe a 'none' selector for the mineral type so that you could get an category which is say: "Nent Valley Surface Remains", or "Longholehead Whimsey Shaft"

What do other users think?

---

If you want an album creating for a mine, just ask 🙂

---

Yes I know, but I was not sure if you can create:

"Nenthead, Mining Surface Remains" as the 'mine' without having the mineral type and mine or quarry selector. This would then have the standard 2 albums:

Nenthead, Mining Surface Remains user album
Nenthead, Mining Surface Remains archive album

If yes, please do!

---

Yes I know, but I was not sure if you can create:

"Nenthead, Mining Surface Remains" as the 'mine' without having the mineral type and mine or quarry selector. This would then have the standard 2 albums:

Nenthead, Mining Surface Remains user album
Nenthead, Mining Surface Remains archive album

If yes, please do!

Hmmmm... it might be easier to create "Surface Remains" albums and attach them to specific mines?

The trouble with creating a "Nenthead Surface Remains" 'object' would be that it would not be mine-specific, which would cause some problems with the search function - not to mention it not having a specific grid reference.

Similarly it would then create the situation of pictures of mines which were not tagged to that mine. Thus, it might be easier to keep photos attached to their mine.

If can let me know which mines need a "Surface Remains" album I'll create them - I'd suggest that the existing "Archive" album is used for surface remains as well?

---

Just noticed, when you go to show all mines A-Z, then select mines with content, the b is a z.

So it did 🙂 Fixed now.

On another note, I have been wondering how to index and create an album for the surface features at Nenthead. There is the smelt mill, compressor houses, powder houses..... which are not all related to a particular mine. I am sure the same applies to many other sites - any thoughts?

I was thinking whether some other categories could be added to the Mine or Quarry selection, such as Shaft, Tunnel, Surface Remains etc... and maybe a 'none' selector for the mineral type so that you could get an category which is say: "Nent Valley Surface Remains", or "Longholehead Whimsey Shaft"

What do other users think?

Tricky one this, because it breaks out of the mine>album>photo setup and introduces problems like from where would you access or link to these collections?

Would they be linked from the mines? If so then it could be done with albums, but as these 'other locations' would logically be related to more than one mine then linking them from mines might not be the correct approach. Any thoughts?

I've got a full days work at the moment putting the finisihing touches to a few other areas of the site. Perhaps this could be looked at afterwards.

One possibility could be album collections, i.e. multiple albums from multiple mines collected together on a page to cover an area, then albums for mines, quarries and 'others' could be collated.

---

I've got a couple of pics of the Calder Lead works on Tyneside I've been wondering whether to upload and if so where.

If there's room for features like that and smeltmills, dressing plants and the like on the site maybe it needs a new top level catagory so you have 'mines' 'quarries' and 'mineral processing works'.... or somthing a bit less long winded.

---

I think haveing a seperate albam for the surface remains is a good idea when they are not related to one mine. if they served a specific group of mines would it be possible to link the albam to all those mines? or would an option like when you search by major mining area in the bar to the left be more sutable where it just brings up the regions and eg alston moor and have an albam in there for them.

the other point that mr mike mad about having more options like shaft workings could you add trial to that list because some of the places in the list are just trials where nothing was found so calling them xxxxx lead mine is a bit misleading

---

This a tricky one and I guess that it is ultimately dependent on how much work would be required to the site. I know I brought it up, but as users it is sometimes easy to forget that a 'simple enough' request may take a lot of work behind the scenes to implement for the admins.

I am sure simonrl has the jist of what we have all mentioned, and maybe the best bet would be for him to come up with some feasible solution if any depending on the work involved???

---

I shall give it some thought as to how best it'd be accomplished.

Certainly it seems that the 'type' menu will need extending; mine, quarry, shaft, tunnel, trial, even (shudder) cave... :lol:

The there needs to be a way of listing then.

Albums in mutiple mines (I'd better start calling them locations) is no problem, it already works that way (although linking the same album from more than one location is currently a manual thing.

So the really tricky bit is, how do we list them. Certainly we can search for a trial using the mine search, and select 'trials' as the match required; but we can't really search for 'surface remains' because logically they're not necessarily tagged to a specific mine.

Head scratching time. Although it'll be a few weeks before I get a chance to build this I fear...

---

An easy workaround, maybe, for this would be to create an album called "Surface Features" for each major mining region. Would that work ?

---

Hmmm, good thinking Colonel. There's no MMR>Album link at present, but that would be easy. But would it be too broad, e.g. the Lake District is an MMR and there will be surface features, trials etc scattered over hundreds of square miles in just that region.

It would work but possibly only at the expense of making MMRs far more granular, but then they'd not be quite so major 😉

---

If there's room for features like that and smeltmills, dressing plants and the like on the site maybe it needs a new top level catagory so you have 'mines' 'quarries' and 'mineral processing works'.... or somthing a bit less long winded.

I think sparty-lea's idea is most sensible - what about 3 options - Mine/Quarry/Other Features? What other options do you need? It's either a mine, a quarry or a seperate building/feature, it could be on an existing site or not.

So, for example, sparty-lea could create Calder lead works -> Identify it as 'Other features' -> And still label it as 'Lead', adding a brief desciption of the works in the box provided.

MrMike could have Nenthead -> Other features -> Lead (because it/they are still associated with the lead mines!)

I personally like to look at an album containing a mixture of surface & underground. But perhaps when you upload a picture, each picture could be tagged surface/underground to allow sorting if required.
As for adding shafts/trials/tunnels, is that not going to cause problems? When does a trial become a mine? Also, surely a shaft is part of a mine etc.?

Perhaps it would be more sensible for contributers to label each picture they download a bit more specifically regarding the location in the mine, then others can find it using the photograph search already in place on aditnow.

If there's room for features like that and smeltmills, dressing plants and the like on the site maybe it needs a new top level catagory so you have 'mines' 'quarries' and 'mineral processing works'.... or somthing a bit less long winded.

I think sparty-lea's idea is most sensible - what about 3 options - Mine/Quarry/Other Features? What other options do you need? It's either a mine, a quarry or a seperate building/feature, it could be on an existing site or not.

So, for example, sparty-lea could create Calder lead works -> Identify it as 'Other features' -> And still label it as 'Lead', adding a brief desciption of the works in the box provided.

MrMike could have Nenthead -> Other features -> Lead (because it/they are still associated with the lead mines!)

I personally like to look at an album containing a mixture of surface & underground. But perhaps when you upload a picture, each picture could be tagged surface/underground to allow sorting if required.
As for adding shafts/trials/tunnels, is that not going to cause problems? When does a trial become a mine? Also, surely a shaft is part of a mine etc.?

Perhaps it would be more sensible for contributers to label each picture they download a bit more specifically regarding the location in the mine, then others can find it using the photograph search already in place on aditnow.

Splitting surface features away from other features on the same site, which is what Heb seems to be suggesting, doesn't sound a particularly good idea. I think the original idea was for surface features which are not directly connected to a mine ie are at a site all on their own.

Regarding naming photos better, I have to agree there, some people just give them numbers!

Splitting the surface features of a mine away from that mine could cause some confussion i would rather keep them with the mine it would not be so bad even if they had there own albam under the mine heading. would it be possible to do the same where some of the mines have been split up into seperate area eg rampgill there is a rampgill file and a rampgill firestone level file or caplecleugh and caplecleugh high level file could it be made so that you put in rampgill that brings up the mine then you can have diffrent parts of the mine appear under that singal heading after you have clicked on it. tyhe photos should be labled up better a title and description i know that i lot of mine are not lables up right because i have uploaded them in a batch and have not got back to them. i would like to be able to lable some localitys as trials because at the moment we have to add a mineral and call them mines but what if there was no mineral found and the drive was only a few feet they are still a site and need to be added to the database but i would not call that a mine

---

Er, I wasn't really suggesting splitting anything. I just thought that assigning some sort of 'marker' to each picture when it's uploaded would allow someone (if they wanted to) to look at only surface or underground pictures. As I said in my post, I personally quite like to see both in the same folder.

The main jist of my message was that by adding one extra option to the mine/quarry drop-down would (maybe) solve a lot of extra work for the guy running this excellent site!

So when does a trial become a mine? There, that should start a discussion, I'm off out tomorrow, I expect at least 3 pages of posts when I return from Coniston!

bit off topic, but I just uploaded a batch of photos to Burlington user album, and I cant find them, but they seem to have been replaced by some photos originally in the album??

regards

---

Was it a one by one upload or a batch upload :(

I've just fixed a bug that caused a problem somewhere else in the one by one upload and I hope it's not caused a new problem in the batch one 😞

---

Was it a one by one upload or a batch upload :(

I've just fixed a bug that caused a problem somewhere else in the one by one upload and I hope it's not caused a new problem in the batch one :(

cheers

Yes, a batch upload, the pics are there but the thumbnails appear as completely different pics already in the album.

cheers
linden

---

Arr.. the pics that appear as the thumbnails on the new pics seem not to load when I find them at the start of the album, a cross comes up where the image should load.

---

Arr.. the pics that appear as the thumbnails on the new pics seem not to load when I find them at the start of the album, a cross comes up where the image should load.

I'm trying to sort it out at the moment...

---