|The Feature Page for the approved proposal Mineshaft is located at Tag:man_made=mineshaft.|
|Definition:||a vertical tunnel|
|Rendered as:||a silhouette of a headframe|
|Vote end:||2009-11-19 +|
This is a proposal for tagging mineshafts. There was already an old abandoned draft from myfanwy. Based on this draft (see history) and a thread in the German board I have created this new draft. This proposal is only about mineshafts (vertical tunnels). Adits or galleries are not part of this proposal (the old proposal mentioned them as "horizontal mineshafts", but a mineshift is by definition vertical).
The shaft itself.
This describes the current function, so if it is a winding shaft (a shaft where materials and humans are transported) or an air shaft.
What is mined for with the mineshaft. See Key:resouce.
If there is a visible headframe above the shaft, this should be set to yes, otherwise no. It should be also set to no if the headframe is enclosed in a building, so that this building can not be easily recognized as part of a mineshaft. Renderers can decide to render mineshaft only if headframe is set to yes, because only then they are easily recognizable in the landscape.
The name of the mine which the mineshaft is a part of.
The operator of the mineshaft, usually the operator of the surrounding mine.
Depth in meters.
The name of the mineshaft.
If the mineshaft is not in use anymore. In this case there sould not be a mineshaft_type-tag.
All this tags can be used on a single node or on an area in combination with building=yes, if there is not only a headframe, but also a building above the shaft.
- This mineshaft should be tagged as a node with mineshaft_type=winding and headframe=yes.
- This mineshaft should be tagged with headframe=yes and disused=yes (there are no cables anymore). It can be tagged as a node or better as an area with building=yes.
- This mineshaft should be tagged with mineshaft_type=winding;air and headframe=no (because it is not visible). It can be tagged as a node or better as an area with building=yes.
It is possible that there is an headframe, which is not used anymore and the mineshaft is currently used only as an airshaft. This should be tagged with headframe=yes, mineshaft_type=air.
- I approve this proposal. Lesi 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. RussNelson 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC) because voting is silly. Don't listen to my rejection -- just go ahead and use the tag.
- I oppose this proposal. I dislike the dependecy between mineshaft_type and disused. Why not simply say mineshaft_type=disused instead? --Nop 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- mineshaft_type describes the current function of a mineshaft, being disused is not a function. "disused" is widely used with other tags. There is no real dependency, it is more a logical consequence. Just as well there is a dependency between highway=cycleway and bicycle=no.
- I approve this proposal. --DanHomerick 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Dieterdreist 10:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Vrabcak 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --xylome 07:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --trekki 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --orienteerer 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I've just started with OSM in the last few days so I apologise for coming in a bit late, but I have a couple of suggestions that might improve the proposal (I've been involved with the mining & exploration industry for a while).
The operator of the mine can be the owner of the mine but not always, often a contractor will operate the minining operations for the owners. So I would suggest also having an owner tag. There is often more than one owner, the percentage owned by each would also be useful.
I would also suggest considering changing the resource tag to commodity for clarity. Resource is used as a more general term, commodities are contained in the resource e.g. proved resources were 100 Million tonnes of ore at 1% copper and 1 g/t gold containing 1 million tonnes of copper and 3.2 million ounces of gold. There is also commonly more than one commodity.
Having a standard list of what can go into the resource tag will also save a lot of time down the track (e.g. "iron mines" are generall known as iron ore mines - most iron ore is used to make steel rather than iron). I would be happy to start a list for comment.
I would like to generally help with getting more mining features documented as there is potential for mining maps and add to the general maps. -- David mds 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some of your suggestions seem to go too far. The operator-tag is taken over from other features. Most industries and also other amenities have more than one owner. If you want to change that or rather introduce an owner-tag these should be done in general and not only for the mineshaft-tag. This is not specific for mining. I am not sure if your suggestion regarding commodities will improve clarity - especially for those who are not that familiar with this topic and with the English language. I hear this term for the first time. I agree with you about the standard list of resources, I asked for these during the RFC, but there were no further suggestions. I also agree that "iron ore" is a better term than "iron". --Lesi 21:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Changed my vote. I see what you mean regarding operator. And from the documentation I see that operator means belongs so I agree this is better to record. And I see multiple values are seperated by a ;. Percentage owned may be going too far, tends to change often too.
Resource versus commodity is a bit schemantic. Resource is used in a number of different ways in mining but does have a very strict meaning within resource clasification codes. General public also has different ideas.
I will start a list of resources (iron ore, coal, copper etc) and see what people think. A short list will cover most mines, maybe a long list can be on another page with link from short list. David mds 01:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Lulu-Ann 14:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Didn't read the proposal, but lesi bothered to come in IRC. --Richlv 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --turbodog 22:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. They can be hazards, they can be tourist attraction, they can be interesting to explore, why not put them on the map?--Skippern 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Czmartin 21:13, 07 Januar 2010 (UTC)
- 13x approved
- 2x opposed
=> The mineshaft feature is approved, minimum number of votes (15) was reached.
Suggestion for resource list
The list of resources by David mds can now be found on a seperate page: Key:resouce