Quarry or Mine

Absolutely. I don't think there's a single correct way of doing this that will please everyone.

In the database, regarding names, "Mine" or "Quarry" is included in the name if that suffix is usually part of the commonly used name.

As for the Site Type, metal extraction is generally classified as a "Mine," even if it involves surface workings. Stone (including slate) is usually classified as a "Mine" if the operations are predominantly underground. These classifications align with the icons that represent an adit and a surface hole. The rationale is that mine explorers are more interested in whether a site involves underground workings rather than its legal classification (which contradicts the statement about mines for all metals!!). However, historians and purists may disagree.

Having said the above, there will be loads of sites contradicting these rules.

Perhaps we should consider adding a separate attribute to indicate whether a site is predominantly underground.

I don't have an issue if people come up with a consenus differing to the 'scheme' currently in use.
 
There's still no one size fits all. Take the fairly dull example of a collapsed denehole, or cluster of. The site was underground workings - extinct, but now all that is there is are some dips, so above ground features - extant.

For the perspective of [dull] exploring - that'd be above ground
For the history of the site, clearly it was an underground site

There'd need to be a decision, whether it's aimed at exploring or historical research unless above/below/both extant features could be a separate attribute to worked above/below/both
 
cantclimbtom said:
That does have implications to databases and search etc. I mean if someone scheme is applied where examples of X are quarry and all Y are mine, then if some local vernacular means a site has the "wrong" name, or is called a pit, or a something else, then people might not find stuff. People will need to be careful not to exclude stuff in searches for the "wrong" classification.
Click to expand...
As an added complication, as well as "mine" and "quarry", some sites in Wales have "chwarel" in their name e.g. Chwarel Bâch and Chwarel Mawr near Ysbyty Ystwyth. These are mostly alternative recorded (and probably local) names for quarries, but in a few cases (including the ones named here) they are the sole name and are recorded as such on the OS 6" map.
 
davel said:
As an added complication, as well as "mine" and "quarry", some sites in Wales have "chwarel"
Click to expand...
Thought of mentioning chwarel, gloddfa, but thought that was too much for one post. But on that note has anyone watched the very carefully compiled (but criminally hardly watched) video from Terry Fawr: y chwarelwr (the quarryman). Stumbled on it recently. Reading a reply to comments the poster of the video is wearing a grey helmet near front of group walking out of the level at end of video. So y chwarelwr is him! Enjoy ..

 
Last edited:
The video is interesting but sad in that we see what was once there but is now no longer.
1986, I was proud of my new XR3i which I rushed back to down the hill to. To my lady friend "Maureen, you wont believe what I have found"
Memories. Sad.
 
cantclimbtom said:
Thought of mentioning chwarel, gloddfa, but thought that was too much for one post. But on that note has anyone watched the very carefully compiled (but criminally hardly watched) video from Terry Fawr: y chwarelwr (the quarryman). Stumbled on it recently. Reading a reply to comments the poster of the video is wearing a grey helmet near front of group walking out of the level at end of video. So y chwarelwr is him! Enjoy ..

Click to expand...

What a fantastic piece of film. I found the charging of that shothole with granular powder particularly interesting. Amazed how little stemming he used. Mind you he was much less circumspect with the ramming up than I am! Wonder if he used newspaper entirely or just as wadding, before ramming up with stone dust or similar?
 
I think most modern explorers are looking to find the separation between overground workings and underground workings, although quarries are more stone workings and mines are minerals and ores, both can be underground but will still have some form of overground clues like spoil heaps or scree slopes.

E.g. you could go to Minera Lead Mine, and the overground workings are great, with the limekiln, but you also have the Minera overground museum and both are in different locations.

And then you have the entrance which is also in a different location to the underground workings.

But Minera was also used for open cast limestone quarrying, so although you have Minera Lead Mine, you also have Minera limestone quarry, and it's basically in the same place.

So while the underground workings are a lead mine for ores and minerals, above ground was a stone quarry, with a huge limekiln.

This is a good example of both a mine and quarry by definition in one location, so would his put separately or all on the same page?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back