[Talk-GB] Tagging historic surface mining/streamworks

[ael]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:42:36PM +0100, Tom Crocker wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2021, 13:02 ael via Talk-GB, <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Any suggestions for tagging? I think that we need something new.
> >
> 
> Have you seen the page Mike Collinson started?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic_mining_activity_in_the_United_Kingdom

I think that I had come across that at some time, but had forgotten.
That doesn't really address the sort of surface mining in question,
but very relevant and closely associated.

There are indeed many old mines, shafts, adits, leats and more in the
area around Minions, and I have mapped many of them using a similar
approach. Some of them are open shafts and downright dangerous, so
they must appear on OSM to warn hikers and more. I generally use
the hazard tag for that.

While the historic tag is always appropriate, many of these things are
obvious on the landscape and frequently landmarks. So we definitely need
to have those aspects on the main OSM database, rather than relegating
them to a putative historic map.

But I digress. Back to surface_mining. These things are usually also
obvious on the landscape, at least the larger ones. They need to
appear somehow on OSM. I think my tag value of "disturbed" captures
one aspect quite well, and is the current state. Whether it should 
be a landuse value is moot, but I don't think it is too misleading.
That does leave natural open to record whatever vegetation etc is
present. 

As for lifecycle, I would feel more comfortable with a simple
abandoned:landuse=surface_mining. But that seems very close
to my current choice of historic=surface_mining.

I can see the logic of calling these things mines with a subtag
to clarify. Actually we don't know that all of them were
streamwork although it seems extremely likely.
But I find the connotations of "mine" unintuitive here, although
I did something similar at one point.

Just my immediate reaction: thanks for the suggestions.
> 
> Would a lifecycle tag help by leaving landuse and natural open, e.g.
> abandoned:landuse=industrial
> abandoned:industrial=mine
> abandoned:mine=streamwork
> (or ruins:) perhaps? I can see industrial might grate a little for the
> prehistoric.
> And/or potentially
> historic=archaeological_site
> site_type=mineral_extraction

ael