Talk:Tag:man made=mineshaft

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Disused Mineshafts

I disagree with the suggestion to "use the namespace disused:man_made=mineshaft" for disused mineshafts. man_made=mineshaft is a physical tag. A disused mineshaft is still a mineshaft physically, so it should not be hidden from renderers. Set man_made=mineshaft + disused=yes instead, and end_date=* if you know it. --Fkv (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree, to the point that I'll be bold soon and just change the wiki and see who complains afterwards, if there is no dissent voiced here in two weeks time. --Gormo (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a dissenter, just an interested passerby that knows little about how mines work. There's hundreds of mines where I live that are left over from the gold rush that are mapped as currently existing mines. Although 99% of them are filled in now and can barely even be seen on the satellite photos. So my questions is, wouldn't disused:man_made=mineshaft be used for those types of mine shafts? Or if not, I still might consider none filled ones disused mine shafts because they are no longer actively being used for mining and are therefore just "tunnels at a former mine." Because the word "mine" denotes a certain currently active industrial activity related to the extraction of precious minerals in my mind.
btw, there's a few tags semi related to this topic, like historic=mine and man_made=adit. I'm sure there's more out there. Maybe the adit would be disused, but the mine shaft wouldn't be or visa versa? And then the general mine area would be tagged as historic=mine? Whatever the case, I think its worth figuring out. So if nothing else, I can properly tag the hundreds of mines around where I live. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know (there was a discussion in the Tagging mailing list some years ago), an adit is a horizontal entrance to a mine, while a mineshaft is a vertical entrance to a mine. The historic=mine page says it's an experimental tag, and I already left a comment on the talk page 7 years ago. If your definition that a mine denotes currently active industrial activity is correct, then historic=mine would be an oxymoron. I don't know about the nuances of these terms, because our local language is German, in which we have much more structured terms for all that stuff, maybe because we still see plenty of mines from middle age and quarries from stone age. It would be too tiresome to always add attributes like "historic" or "former" when talking about them. So we basically talk about a mine or a quarry whenever something looks like a mine or a quarry, and add adjectives or choose from a wide range of other nouns when we want to be more specific. --Fkv (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)