Talk pages for Locality pages http://www.mindat.org/msgboard-105.html Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:10:55 +0000 Phorum 5.2.15a http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,296771#msg-296771 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,296771#msg-296771 Paul Brandes Localities Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:52:32 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,296139,296139#msg-296139 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,296139,296139#msg-296139
I think the location is slightly off. It's more like.

Latitude: 41°37'11"N
Longitude: 72°35'46"W]]> MIchael Sharpe Localities Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:20:49 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295933#msg-295933 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295933#msg-295933 Cheers
Jim]]> Jim Gawura Localities Sat, 08 Jun 2013 06:03:20 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295926#msg-295926 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295926#msg-295926 Paul Brandes Localities Sat, 08 Jun 2013 01:31:23 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295760,295761#msg-295761 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295760,295761#msg-295761 [attachment 45762 Cacoxenite1b.jpg]

Strengite (probably)
[attachment 45763 Strengite1b.jpg]

Strengite showing internal structure
[attachment 45764 Strengite2b.jpg]

Regards,

Steve]]> Steve Stuart Localities Thu, 06 Jun 2013 01:39:00 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295760,295760#msg-295760 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295760,295760#msg-295760
I'm photographing some neat spherical phosphates and a nice cacoxenite hedgehog. I'll add them to this thread.

Steve]]> Steve Stuart Localities Thu, 06 Jun 2013 01:09:57 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295726,295726#msg-295726 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295726,295726#msg-295726
Bill]]> William W Besse Localities Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:23:25 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295665#msg-295665 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295665#msg-295665 Scott Sadlocha Localities Wed, 05 Jun 2013 02:19:42 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295659#msg-295659 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295659#msg-295659 Paul Brandes Localities Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:39:33 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,280722,295621#msg-295621 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,280722,295621#msg-295621 do you know what are these orange and violet crystals associated to ammineite?]]> Giorgio Bortolozzi Localities Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:37:00 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295551#msg-295551 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295551#msg-295551
Next year, the museum, Keweenaw Gem and Gift, and Red Metal Minerals will sponsor the Retreat. Will need to wait for to see how the Retreat is run. Little seems to stay the same, but in the meantime, the Copper Country Retreat goes on! Lots to see and do.

Like Paul, I intend to explore, photograph though I doubt if I find many remote spots. Above all collect and increase my understanding of the Keweenaw geology.

Keith]]> Keith A. Peregrine Localities Tue, 04 Jun 2013 03:29:24 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295543#msg-295543 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295543#msg-295543 -------------------------------------------------------
> Been a while since the last activity on this
> thread.
> Anyone heading up to the Keweenaw this summer??


Yeah, Cliff mine on Saturday...]]> Dan Fountain Localities Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:02:25 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295529#msg-295529 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295529#msg-295529
Thanks for the link Travis.

What kind of changes are happening to the ccmr? It is not stopping, is it? I have yet to make it up for that, but would hate the idea of never having the chance.

I will try to post up more details when I find out and when I get my PC fixed (waiting on a power supply delivery and trying to post on my phone - aargh!)]]> Scott Sadlocha Localities Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:05:38 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295528#msg-295528 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295528#msg-295528 Paul Brandes Localities Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:48:38 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295492#msg-295492 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295492#msg-295492
Keith]]> Keith A. Peregrine Localities Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:02:00 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295468#msg-295468 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295468#msg-295468 D Mike Reinke Localities Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:30:10 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295463#msg-295463 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295463#msg-295463
Also, for anyone who hasn't seen it, the museum has posted an update to the Mineralogy of Michigan on their website. The .pdf is available free of charge. Has some cool new pics, new minerals, etc.

[www.museum.mtu.edu]

Travis]]> Travis Olds Localities Mon, 03 Jun 2013 02:05:11 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295458#msg-295458 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,250351,295458#msg-295458 Anyone heading up to the Keweenaw this summer??]]> Paul Brandes Localities Mon, 03 Jun 2013 00:37:15 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295438#msg-295438 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295438#msg-295438
In a case like Phoenixville we may have to duplicate a file for the "district" under each incorporated entity involved. We don't like it, but sometimes you have to do what is unavoidable. If you give me the details of what needs to be corrected, we can work on it together.

Chet]]> Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. Localities Sun, 02 Jun 2013 20:57:46 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295425#msg-295425 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295425#msg-295425
You are correct, my concerns weight heavily for how divisions have always been handled here, the congestion and overlaps as you noted in NJ as well, and even my own prejudices for data management. I am formally trained in visual communication, where less truly is more. My wife on the other hand is a software developer who for many years has been working on information extraction programs, attempting to manage "the fire hose of information" now available online (an A.I. version of separating "the wheat from the chaff" as it were). Volume does create it's own problems elswhere.

We do need consistency for here, there and everywhere, so yes I'm on board with the new world order.

Should be easy enough, but we may need to discuss how to manage/eliminate the current Wheatley Mining district as it is currently set up. It has been treated as a specialty district in order to keep the various mine sites together in a hierarchy, but the new scheme will require they be parceled out to the various townships, none of which have any relation to Phoenixville itself. The confusion or issues with this is for contributers when posting images. Like Bergen Hill specimens, we will need somewhere to post pics of the many old and newer "district" specimens that were simply attributed to "Phoenixville" or latterly re-attributed the Wheatley simply due to it's familiarity, but are actually from other mining sites in the area.

Much appreciate your patience Chet, I realize some of these issues may have already been discussed reasoned out, infinitum, some time ago. ;)


MRH]]> Mark Heintzelman Localities Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:49:19 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295407#msg-295407 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295407#msg-295407
Adding in all the USGS coordinates will make it easier, not harder, to discern what is what. Nothing is squeezed out of the database by adding more coordinates! It seems that perhaps you are somewhat limiting your thought process to the middle Atlantic area and the old British system of land divisions we have here. Once you leave the New England/Middle Atlantic region, the townships all but disappear, further West and incorporated municipalities are scarcer. Coordinates become more essential. One crosses the Tucson city limit some 20 miles to the East on I-10. Simply stating that there is an occurrence at Tucson, AZ, would be wholly inadequate. Perhaps relating the occurrence to the coordinates of record of Tucson will give some idea of how distant it might be from the city center. The "nearest localities" feature in Mindat (under "maps" option) depends completely on those coordinates. Cornwall might be a locality where your argument can be raised, but the mine is not the borough and the borough is not the mine. The practice of making exceptions could soon get out of hand.

In the past things were very simple. A locality was simply attributed to the nearest populated place whether or not it was actually within that place's boundaries. Those are inaccurate data! If Mindat has accurate data that supercedes preceeding literature with inaccurate data, then we are more credible, which is exactly what we want. The presence of the old, inaccurate data for an occurrence can be commented upon in the "locality description" block, clarifying the data and explaining why Mindat's data are as they are.

Mark, I sincerely appreciate your concern and continuing interest in Mindat. Keep smiling! Hope to see you at Franklin in September.]]> Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. Localities Sun, 02 Jun 2013 13:46:46 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295394#msg-295394 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295394#msg-295394 I am trying to come around to the idea that we need to address locality strings on a politically correct basis, rather than a geographically logical breakdown. I will follow whatever standard is set here for consistency sake. Including the ida of a full blanket of USGS coordinates, but not without offering some perspective on that, that sometimes "less is more".

My take on hierarchy was simply that U.S. States are carved up into Counties and Counties are carved up into Townships, but boroughs are small and randomly scattered throughout the County, usually fully contained within the various Township borders, sometimes two or more within one Township, much like any other town or village. Politically they may be similar to Townships, but Geographically speaking, they are an aberration to an otherwise orderly hierarchy if they need be dealt with on the same hierarchal level as Township, but if it is must be so, then so be it. I guess my only real issue is that within the larger County locality string, they are not as well represented as far as actual geographic location or "nearness" is concerned (minor).

My issue with "completeness" of USGS coordinates being entered is that I always "assumed" that the icons on the visual map feature here on mindat represented mineral localities, or at least it's nearest associated location. If we are to enter USGS coordinates for every associated town, borough and municipality as well as the mineral sites themselves, I do fear this feature will become overly cluttered and virtually useless. I am trying to see the bigger picture too, but perhaps not from the same perspective.

For instance, adding USGS coordinates for the borough of Cornwall, which is essentially the size of an entire Township, seems pretty nonsensical. The mine itself has it's own USGS coordinates entered, it is physically near Cornwall (the "town") it's listed under Cornwall in the locality string and there are no other localities within that general area (the "town") that one would wish to "place". The addition of this kind of redundancy seems more likely to cause confusion than to aid anyone. We already have one image that was added to the borough rather than to the mines locality page, likely because the borough has USGS coordinates and so it "appears" to be a legitimate mineral locality as well. I assume the label probably noted "Cornwall" rather than "Cornwall mine", which is not at all uncommon, and the logical assumption was made. Maybe not a big problem, but it is an error I can't simply rectify myself. Sometimes the up-loaders are quick to handle these, but I've also been waiting for well over a year on some others and they are still not rectified.

One last problem. Your mention of mindat giving deference to "site placement" over the appropriate placement of a sites associated municipality? I am wondering how will it look to a web-wide audience when we inappropriately locate "village X" in "Y Township" (where the mineral locality is), and wikipedia and every other website places "village X" appropriately in "X Township"? It just feels like we're adding poor or confusing data to the web by doing this. Thus far in such situations, I've made note of a mineralogical sites "actual" Township location within site description text, rather than fudge the locality string in favor of our own personal interests. The judgment call on this is yours of course, I just wanted to make note of my discomfort with it.


MRH]]> Mark Heintzelman Localities Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:09:33 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295382#msg-295382 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295382#msg-295382
There are reasons for everything!! I am probably the one who modified the Cornwall file. First, there are frequently two populated places (incorporated municipal entities) with the same name. I live in one: Pemberton Township. Within the township, and completely surrounded by it, is Pemberton borough, a separate corporate entity. We have a phosphate locality with Pemberton Township in a hamlet called Birmingham. The file originally said that it was in Pemberton, NJ, which is vague at best. In fact, it is several miles from the borough of the same name. The file was clarified by inserting Birmingham and Pemberton Township to distinguish it. There is no fault in accuracy!

Using the distinguishing term "borough" is not only consistent with the USGS GNIS database nomenclature, but also serves to clarify any ambiguity that might exist with similarly named entities. Borough have the same level as townships in a locality string - they are of equal status. A hamlet within a township is not, it is one level lower. A mine has status as either the lowest level, or next to it if there are subordinate mine workings involved worthy of listing separately (e.g.: Parker shaft, Franklin Mine, Franklin, NJ). We OFTEN have locality files citing the wrong civil entity (borough versus township in most cases). I correct many of these. Use of terms such as "borough" and "township" eliminates the ambiguity; therefore, they should be used in all cases where they exist. Secondly, the use of geographic coordinates serves several purposes. First it nails down exactly which incorporated entity is involved. Second, it serves to place things in a geographical context. In Mindat we have the feature of "nearby localities." That will tell you how far one entity is from other nearby entities, but only if each entity has geographic coordinates. In this case, if we have coordinates for the mine, we can tell immediately how far it is from the borough and in what direction. Third, there are many locality files wherein the locality is described in vague terms, or terms that could be interpreted in more than one way. A locality such as "Highway roadcuts West of Cornwall" doesn't tell you exactly where it is. With the coordinates entered for Cornwall, a Mindat user can pull up the map for Cornwall using the "Maps" button and at least discern where Cornwall is relative to the rest of Pennsylvania. Calling up the topo map feature may give clues as to where the roadcut might actually be, even if we don't have coordinates for it. It is better to have comprehensive correct data than incomplete vague data! Many Mindat users around the world don't necessarily know where Cornwall, Pennsylvania is. Now they can readily see where it is. You have to have an open mind and look at the larger picture! We need the term "borough" and we need the geographic coordinates! Our goal is to nail down localities as definitively, and correctly, as possible, using all the tools at our disposal.

If the Cornwall mine is not within the boundaries of the incorporated borough, then the file should be corrected to place it into whichever borough or township it is actually in, and a comment made in the locality description block regarding its relationship relative to the borough to clarify the issue.

A couple of weeks ago I had a similar case for Pennington Mountain, NJ. The file placed it in Pennington (borough). It is not within the borough, but rather, within the surrounding township of a different name.

Chet

P.S.: I checked the file. Yes, I changed it for all the reasons deliniated above. The mine is within the borough corporate limits and the coordinates provided are the USGS GNIS database coordinates of record for the borough. The files are correct and complete.]]> Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. Localities Sun, 02 Jun 2013 00:29:06 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295355#msg-295355 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295355#msg-295355 Lots of activity in the woods and area around it ....
Trees cut down ; lots cleared .... as of march when we were last there ....
?]]> Tom Bennett Localities Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:52:54 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295348#msg-295348 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,295348,295348#msg-295348
Bourough, in this somewhat unique case, should be placed in the same hierarchy as Townships are elsewhere in the county and Pennsylvania on the whole. They are geographical borders which further splitting up the county, with no overlaps nor areas of exclusion. There should be NO lat/long data added for this or any other such entity.

Cornwall is Cornwall, just as Philadelphia, Paris, London, or Rome. We don't call Paris, Paris City, nor London, London City etc., and I know of no reference to suggest otherwise for Cornwall. Cornwall should be added within Cornwall borough. Also, LAT/LONG data really ought to be reserved for mineralogical sites only, when available, and not added to each and every political division.

I have the proper level to make these changes, but I do wish to seek consensus on this, and an common understanding on how these issues are best addressed in the future.


MRH

PS: the image: [www.mindat.org] which currently resides in the "borough" only, needs to be moved to the Cornwall mine locality.]]> Mark Heintzelman Localities Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:06:07 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,282488,295043#msg-295043 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,282488,295043#msg-295043
MRH]]> Mark Heintzelman Localities Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:38 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,282488,294997#msg-294997 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,282488,294997#msg-294997 I am so sorry to have missed this thread. I'm afraid you have definitely chosen the wrong locality for this specimen. This is a classic piece from Overbrook, Philadelphia, complete with typical Quartz development and well noted brilliant red Rutile xtls. It is a very nice piece, even more so due to it's classic the Philadelphia locality.

Sorry so late on this, but the attribution needs to be corrected on this one. The Hestonville area, including the Overboork locality has not yet been added to the database, so for now simply use Philadelphia Co., for it's attribute and I willl get to making this and other locality additions to the database ASAP (the work is never REALLY done. is it?) ;)

(provided is an exemplary sample from the Varaday collection auctioned off a year or so back).


Mark]]> Mark Heintzelman Localities Wed, 29 May 2013 16:19:28 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,294710,294978#msg-294978 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,294710,294978#msg-294978 Uwe Kolitsch Localities Wed, 29 May 2013 12:24:10 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,228277,294848#msg-294848 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,228277,294848#msg-294848 kkirk Localities Mon, 27 May 2013 21:57:09 +0000 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,294710,294710#msg-294710 http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,105,294710,294710#msg-294710 Chris Stefano Localities Sun, 26 May 2013 12:00:36 +0000