Mine exploration, photographs and mining history for mine explorers, industrial archaeologists, researchers and historians Mine explorer and mining history videos on YouTube Connect with other mine explorers on Facebook
Tip: do not include 'mine' or 'quarry', search by name e.g. 'cwmorthin', use 'Sounds like search' if unsure of spelling

Advanced Search
'Sounds like search'
Quick a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
Tip: narrow down your search by typing more than one word and selecting 'Search for all words' or 'Exact search'

Search for any word
Search for all words
Exact search
Tip: narrow down your search by typing more than one word and selecting 'Search for all words' or 'Exact search'

Search for any word
Search for all words
Exact search

Mine Exploration Forum

Author Swaledale Mines & the Database.
RJV

Avatar of RJV

Joined: 16/03/2008
Location: Cleveland

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 11/01/2011 12:50:06
Reply |  Quote
Following on from the thread re the problems with Cornish mines it reminds me that I've been thinking about how best to have Swaledale represented in the database.

A great number of the mines would primarily be known by their group name - eg the AD Mines, Old Gang Mines or Surrender Mine - with the names of individual levels being then recognised within each group. For say the Old Gang Mines you would have Hard Level, Victoria Level the Friarfold (Brandy Bottle) Incline plus various shafts and lesser levels.

As it stands, it is the levels that are entered in the database not the group names. I can't argue with that, the levels were often over a mile apart and although they were often connected underground they were clearly distinct undertakings and not just a group of levels piled one on top of the other working the same piece of ground as in say Ystrad Einion, Aberllyn or Force Crag. It does however mean that the group names can't be added within the database.

Now whilst it would obviously be easy to put 'part of the Old Gang Mines' in the mine description it does mean that the various levels are still in reality unconnected in the database.

The obvious solution to me would be to erase all of the individual levels from the database, create entries for the group names as above then add individual folders for the various levels etc within the group as has been done for Coniston. The major problem I can see with that however is that sooner rather than later Mr Sunday Stroller is going to take a photo of one of the levels whilst out for a wander and create a whole new entry again for the level not knowing the group name.

Any ideas?


--

Rich
IP: 80.254.146.20
ICLOK

Avatar of ICLOK

Joined: 19/02/2008
Location: Ripley, Derbyshire up North.

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 11/01/2011 13:14:07
Reply |  Quote
I noticed Brandy Bottle in the DB some while ago... Perhaps a way of doing it is as per surface features.. Ie Top level mine with a DB entry for each level and the ability to link the top level mine to the levels involved ... at the point of entering "Old gang mines" it would ask you "is this a major underground feature", thus allowing links to all the different levels just as we do for surface feature, but I think your way would work equally as well.... Databases are tricky things as like Simon says everyone has a different take on it.
Regs Ian Smile

--

We must perform a Quirkafleeg
IP: 78.150.158.107
SimonRL

Avatar of SimonRL

Joined: 27/11/2005
Location: North Wales

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 11/01/2011 13:18:37
Reply |  Quote
I think the best way of doing this (rather than involving major surface features which would confuse - or writing any additional code) would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me) to multiple mines.

So you could have:

Single overall entry for the 'mine' - which had a description and links to the pages for the levels / trial etc relating to it

An entry per level / trial relating to the names mine

Two albums linked under each level / trial photos

*And* those albums linked to the parent 'mine' so the albums with the same photos would appear in both places and the overall entry would link to the individual entries

Would that make sense?

--

Keep Calm And Carry On
IP: 95.148.13.37
RJV

Avatar of RJV

Joined: 16/03/2008
Location: Cleveland

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 11/01/2011 13:30:07
Reply |  Quote
Seems to make sense.
I'll knock up a list when I get a moment if there's agreement that thats the best way to do it.

I expect that that's a feature which could have great use in areas such as Northumberland where the selection of pits which comprise a colliery all seem to be listed separately but that's not my area at all!


--

Rich
IP: 80.254.146.20
rikj

Avatar of rikj

Joined: 27/12/2008

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 11/01/2011 14:03:15
Reply |  Quote
The Greenhow area could possibly do with some of the same treatment.

Likewise South and West Yorkshire coalfields, with regards to pits and collieries.

Would it be possible to trial one area of mines to see if it's usable for people?


--

sanitas per evolo
IP: 86.128.250.28
SimonRL

Avatar of SimonRL

Joined: 27/11/2005
Location: North Wales

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 11/01/2011 14:07:57
Reply |  Quote
With this and the parallel thread regarding the SW region I'm wondering if it's time to give the regional editors in certain areas a bit of a refresh?

NOT the SW region - or any other region where there are active editors!

I've resisted doing this for ages because I'd hate to cause any offence to existing regional editors who for whatever reason don't have much time or if there actually isn't anything much left to do in an area of the database.

And I'd not suggest replacing any existing editors, just adding a few more who've got the enthusiasm to sort out issues, duplicates and keep things moving.

Perhaps certain areas have been freewheeling for a while and it's time for some new blood with some new ideas?

--

Keep Calm And Carry On
IP: 95.148.13.37
John Lawson

Joined: 09/12/2010
Location: Castle Douglas Dumfries & Galloway

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 11/01/2011 21:02:39
Reply |  Quote
The data base should be indexed by the individual names of the mines.
The Old Gang mines was in fact a mining company working a distinct area .The A.D. Company mined a different area.
Eventually, after the dramatic fall in the price of lead the Old Gang company closed down and the area was just left with the A.D. Co. and the Faggergill Co. It was as result of this falling lead price the Sir Francis Engine shut down-never to be restarted
IP: 92.1.32.144
christwigg

Avatar of christwigg

Joined: 20/02/2008
Location: Cleveland / North Yorkshire

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 12/01/2011 12:34:57
Reply |  Quote
RJV wrote:

Seems to make sense.
I'll knock up a list when I get a moment if there's agreement that thats the best way to do it.



Makes sense to me too.
IP: 82.5.179.238
Les W

Avatar of Les W

Joined: 13/07/2010
Location: Wells, Somerset

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 12/01/2011 13:02:02
Reply |  Quote
simonrl wrote:

I think the best way of doing this would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me)


I can see a problem with this if people rely on PM's to notify you of the need to link. Big Grin

--

I'm a very busy person
IP: 81.158.254.79
lipsi

Avatar of lipsi

Joined: 20/04/2008
Location: Worcester, England

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 12/01/2011 14:03:57
Reply |  Quote
There is potential for even more confusion here. What happens to mines (particularly collieries but not exclusively) where they started as individual mines, but then got incorporated into bigger ventures? Do they get listed under their individual names, or the group?
I think firstly, we need to have a naming protocol to cut out the Old Gunnislake/Gunnislake Old issue and then perhaps consider using the description to state "part of the ....."

In my own database, I use the adjective Old/North/New first, then the name of the mine, then the name/number of the pit or level. In the notes section, I add if it became part of .... at a later date.

Whatever, as long as we all use the same format, then it should cut down on the errors.

--

Where there's a mine or a hole in the ground. That's where I'm heading for that's where I'm bound So follow me down Cousin Jack (Grateful thanks to Show of Hands)
IP: 86.138.17.226
Jimbo

Avatar of Jimbo

Joined: 30/03/2007
Location: Ooop North

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 12/01/2011 19:25:56
Reply |  Quote
simonrl wrote:

I think the best way of doing this (rather than involving major surface features which would confuse - or writing any additional code) would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me) to multiple mines.

So you could have:

Single overall entry for the 'mine' - which had a description and links to the pages for the levels / trial etc relating to it

An entry per level / trial relating to the named mine

Two albums linked under each level / trial photos

*And* those albums linked to the parent 'mine' so the albums with the same photos would appear in both places and the overall entry would link to the individual entries

Would that make sense?


Yes this idea is probably best Thumb Up

You definitely need to keep the individual names of the mines as John has pointed out or there will be all sorts of problems once you start classifying an area by the major company who mined it, as you would have to do the same for other areas to keep the database consistent. For example the mines of Nenthead would these then become the London Lead Company Mines or Vieille Montagne Zinc Company Mines Confused

Regarding the regional editors, we can make amendments to the database fairly easily but only if they are pointed out/agreed by people in the first place.

One thing that does take time is moving pictures between albums as you have to locate the destination mine every time within the A-Z database (now very large!) for each picture you move; a batch move function would be very handy.

The suggestion I made a while ago where the Grid Ref is displayed next to each mine in the A-Z lists would also allow duplicate entries to be spotted so much easier Smile

Jim
IP: 92.17.104.142
Dean Allison

Joined: 13/01/2008
Location: Northumberland

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 12/01/2011 20:16:05
Reply |  Quote
Jimbo wrote:

simonrl wrote:

I think the best way of doing this (rather than involving major surface features which would confuse - or writing any additional code) would be to make use of the fact that albums can be linked (manually, by me) to multiple mines.

So you could have:

Single overall entry for the 'mine' - which had a description and links to the pages for the levels / trial etc relating to it

An entry per level / trial relating to the named mine

Two albums linked under each level / trial photos

*And* those albums linked to the parent 'mine' so the albums with the same photos would appear in both places and the overall entry would link to the individual entries

Would that make sense?


Yes this idea is probably best Thumb Up

You definitely need to keep the individual names of the mines as John has pointed out or there will be all sorts of problems once you start classifying an area by the major company who mined it, as you would have to do the same for other areas to keep the database consistent. For example the mines of Nenthead would these then become the London Lead Company Mines or Vieille Montagne Zinc Company Mines Confused

Regarding the regional editors, we can make amendments to the database fairly easily but only if they are pointed out/agreed by people in the first place.

One thing that does take time is moving pictures between albums as you have to locate the destination mine every time within the A-Z database (now very large!) for each picture you move; a batch move function would be very handy.

The suggestion I made a while ago where the Grid Ref is displayed next to each mine in the A-Z lists would also allow duplicate entries to be spotted so much easier Smile

Jim




This is a problem I have noticed, for example, Bedlington has several pits listed as Bedlington A, Bedlington F etc etc. The problem is that whilst they may be the official names, you ask anyone up here in Northumberland where Bedlington F pit was and they won't have a clue. Its Bomarsund Colliery. There were several pits run by the Bedlington Coal Company but they had their own names such as West Sleekburn, The Winning, Bomarsund, Old Pit, etc etc. It is confusing but I agree with Jimbo in that the individual names should be kept Smile
IP: 2.99.165.131
RJV

Avatar of RJV

Joined: 16/03/2008
Location: Cleveland

View Profile
View Posts
View Personal Album
View Personal Files
View all Photos
Send Private Message
Swaledale Mines & the Database.
Posted: 12/01/2011 20:43:12
Reply |  Quote
Dean Allison wrote:


This is a problem I have noticed, for example, Bedlington has several pits listed as Bedlington A, Bedlington F etc etc. The problem is that whilst they may be the official names, you ask anyone up here in Northumberland where Bedlington F pit was and they won't have a clue. Its Bomarsund Colliery. There were several pits run by the Bedlington Coal Company but they had their own names such as West Sleekburn, The Winning, Bomarsund, Old Pit, etc etc. It is confusing but I agree with Jimbo in that the individual names should be kept Smile


The known by names can be appended to the formal name as has been done on F Pit the only trouble is it will only show as Bedlington F in the a-z rather than Bomarsund. They will show up in the name search though.

As I understand it those pits would collectively be known as Bedlington Colliery. With Simon's plan those pits would potentially be connected in the database but they would also retain their own place in the A-Z.

Seems ok to me?

--

Rich
IP: 82.4.12.54
Moore Books: Specialist Books I.A. Recordings: Mining and Industrial History DVDs Starless River - Caving Store Explore a Disused Welsh Slate Mine
Disclaimer: Mine exploring can be quite dangerous, but then again it can be alright, it all depends on the weather. Please read the proper disclaimer.
© 2005 to 2015 AditNow.co.uk
Top of Page