[Talk-GB] Tagging historic surface mining/streamworks

[Michael Collinson]

 >> 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.'

Ah, thanks Tom, I'd forgotten all about that. I have brought it more or less up date and will add anything forgotten over the next few days, perhaps adding any conclusion from this thread.

Ael, yes you right it does not really address your issue.  I have previously mapped hushes as option 1 below. I'm not entirely happy with that as it really needs a description tag to go with it unless it is named Whatsit Hush, which happens in less than 10% of sites that I've found.

Hushes are a little different to streamworks. Streamworks use directed water over time in the same way as US gold rush hydraulic mining and sluice box mining on placer deposits. Hushing is more of waa-hay lets burst this dam and see all the surface sh*t disappear down to the next village and we can get to the bedrock to look for veins.

But the dramatic effect on today's landscape looks similar, I suspect.

Personally, I'd be happy with historic=quarry. It may not look like a rock quarry, but then a lot of old quarries don't look like quarries either, it is the affect of time rather than the technique.

As in the Sept Glenmuckloch mine thread I sit on the fence as to whether any new tag value is needed. To my mind, this kind of extraction, open cast mines and quarries are the same thing except for the rock/mineral being extracted. But I think I was in a minority then. So, 3 suggestions from me. I think the key thing is to put the emphasis on the historic as the visible expression we describing is landscape sculpting rather than land use or land cover. On the whole, option 2 works for me.


Mike

historic=archaeological_site
site_type=mineral_extraction
cutting=yes    https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cutting
mineral=xxx    - what is being extracted using commonly used terms. E.g. I use lead rather than galena or lead_sulphide.

historic=surface_mining
site_type=mineral_extraction
cutting=yes  - optional here, perhaps use in the same way as natural=cliff with quarry faces
mineral=xxx


historic=quarry
site_type=mineral_extraction
cutting=yes - optional
mineral=xxx

And for anyone interested:

A good description of streamworks
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1020051

Hushes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushing

What they later turned into:
https://www.sierracollege.edu/ejournals/jsnhb/v2n1/miningtechniques.html

On 2021-09-03 10:58, ael via Talk-GB wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 10:37:38PM +0100, Tom Crocker wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, 20:46 ael, <witwall3 at disroot.org> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>> I did something similar at one point.
>>>
>> I was just trying to see what could be done with the approved tags. I'd
>> prefer it if that was landuse=mining as that's a use while mine is a thing.
>> Also, it's worth noting that the wiki page for that and landuse=quarry seem
> My problem with landuse=mining is that is not the present use.
> landuse=disturbed does describe the present situation, although
> I think neither of us is very comfortable with "landuse" here.
> In many cases there is some "landuse" of free ranging sheep, pony
> and cattle grazing, so that mutually exclusive with a single valued
> landuse.
>
>> to suggest they are not the British-English uses of the term and quarry is
>> any open-cast mining - I wonder if this is part of the problem that
>> resulted in the retagging?
> Indeed. I suppose that someone, maybe me, should modify that wiki page.
> But I do think it is at the very least impolite to retag withiout
> consultation or survey.
>> If you did come up with a new tag, it might be worth considering whether
>> hushes would fall under it, as they seem quite similar to my mind and are
>> the thing I'm more familiar with from the North East (but also having never
>> heard of a streamwork before - perhaps they're very different).
> I had to look up hushing. It does look very similar. If we can find
> a decent tag, I guess it should cover both stream works and hushes.
> My impression is that hushes are usually rather larger than the typical
> streamworks. (Gonamena streamworks is exceptionally large.)
>
> How were/are hushes tagged? I see a few streams with names including
> hush, but no hush areas.
>
> At one time, I thought that this might come under a broad heading of
> opencast mining. I see an abandoned man_made=surface_mine proposal on
> the wiki. I can see abandoned:man_made=surface_mine with perhaps
> a subtag might be an option.
>
>> fell foul of the edit. I also wondered if you could map out some of the
>> features like earth banks or gullies that it looks are at Gonamena and
>> whether that would go some way toward what you're trying to achieve?
> Maybe. Much of it is private land and inaccessible for a survey.
>
> ael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb