Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Improving Mindat.orgHochstein, locality hierarchy

17th Mar 2006 23:30 UTCChristof Schäfer Manager

There are two localities (quarries) on Hochstein Mountain with the same geological background (same volcano) but in part different in mineralisation.

The correct political hierarchy would be:

- Michels quarry/Hochstein/......../Mendig/Eifel Mts.

- Tuff quarries/Hochstein/â€¦â€¦../Mayen/Eifel Mts.

What should have prioity political or geological aspects?

Christof

18th Mar 2006 13:20 UTCBruce Osborne

Please remove Liebigite from the North Carolina Data site # 4033. According to information from Kenny Gay - North Carolina Geological Survey the mineral was misidentified and was Meta- Autunite from Spruce Pine, Mitchell Co. Bruce Osborne

18th Mar 2006 15:30 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Fixed

18th Mar 2006 16:10 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Normally we give the political subdivisions priority over geological ones. In the US, similar locations can be found accross political boundaries such as between counties (US - County, State, Country; counties are political entities of ~200 square miles). For mining districts we can have the hierarchies:

mining district, County1, State, USA

mining district, County2, State, USA

22nd Mar 2006 17:23 UTCPeter Haas

It seems to be time to add some notes about the construction of locality hierarchies and to explain the principles that were applied to the german localities in particular. Let's start with the german political divisions, which are as follows:

(german) (english equivalent term)

Bundesland - State

Regierungsbezirk - District (higher level)

Landkreis - District (lower level)

Gemeinde - Parish

When Thomas Witzke and I established the present hierarchy of the german localities (Thomas worked on the eastern counties, me on the rest), we agreed NOT to adopt the political divisions below the 'Bundesland' level. Instead, geographic sub-divisions were chosen. There are several reasons to do so, which I will outline below. Districts, wherever used, are ALWAYS minig districts (proper german term: "Revier"), NOT administrative ones. To the native collector, this intention will become clear from the german locality names, which I will continue to fill in (at present, about two third of the localities are complete in this respect).

(1) None of the present political divisions has any historical meaning. They were created after WW II (west), and in 1990 (east), respectively, and ever since, the parish and district boundaries have been subjected to a continual change. Only about 100 years ago, there has not even been a single german state, and until the late 19th century, the area was split up in a vast number of small and smallest more or less independent territories. On the other hand, we have a large number of pretty well defined minig districts, that were worked for hundreds of years (and often with the mines connected underground). To split these up in parishes and districts would do more harm than good.

For instance, the Freiberg mining district extends into four administrative districts (Landkreise). Many specimens - even historical ones - bear only "Freiberg" on their labels, which generally refers to the district (and NOT specifically to Freiberg). Hence, with a hierarchy entirely based on political points of view, we would not have a single entry for the district that combines all the related localities. Another example: The HimmelsfÃ¼rst Mine, which is located only a few km south of the town of Freiberg (the latter in the 'Landkreis' Freiberg) belongs to the 'Landkreis' Brand-Erbisdorf ...

This problem is probably more stringent in a densely populated region such as Central Europe, where the lower level political divisions are usually very small, than in other parts of the world. Therefore, specifical hierarchies have to be developed for each country. We should always bear in mind, however, that our main goal is to build a database for mineral collectors, not for geologists and definitely not for the authorities (or anybody else who might be specifically interested in which deposit is situated in which parish). It is favourable to use political divisions for the higher hierarchy levels, but I do not recommend to anyone to push this ordering principle to its limits. When the political entities get smaller, a different ordering principle may prove more effective. If there are too many deposits, mining districts and geological formations that have to be split in respect of parish and district boundaries, the system is clearly not effective.

One big benefit of the system used by Mindat to construct locality hierarchies is its versatility. For instance, when there are several geologically related localities within a certain area, they can be combined without losing the individual entries by creating an appropriate intermediate level whose locality description field is used to provide all the general information. Likewise, a locality can be split up without losing its integrity by listing the individual geologies as sub-level entries. To come back to Christof's initial question, an example for the latter is Hochstein Mt. and an example for the former is the Laach lake volcanic complex, both of which need to be re-worked. The best compromise I can think of is to introduce an intermediate level "Mayen - Mendig area" (an entirely geographic descriptor that includes both parishes) and to add the information as to which parish exactly an individual locality belongs to, into the respective locality description field. However, these problems cannot be resolved in a geologically satisfying way when a strictly political hierarchy is kept.

(2) There are many monographies on local mineralogy and geology dedicated to geographic areas (e.g. Eifel, Odenwald, Black Forest, ...) but there is none dedicated to a 'Bundesland' as a whole or even to a district (except for a geological guide of the Saarland, as far as I remember). This is to some part because the respective regions share some basic geology, but it also reflects the collectors' preferences: there are many regional collections dealing specifically with such areas. Including these areas as sub-divisions in a hierarchy clearly breaks the system of political ordering, but it undoubtedly makes the database more useful. This leads us to another important point to consider:

(3) The locality lists on Mindat have to be compatible to the related literature. That is, we have to take account of the regional descriptors used to describe localities in mineralogical and geological guides and textbooks (which rarely strictly obey political divisions). If we don't, the search for a particular locality will become rather difficult. Experience tells that our contributors tend to add new entries when the first search does not immediately produce the desired hit. However, an entirely political hierarchy will inevitably lead to more discrepancies and, therefore, also to a lot of additional editorial work.

Honestly, I favour political divisions as higher level entries, but I do not see any advantage in strictly keeping them down to the lowest levels. Of course, the administrative divisions are not properly reflected when we don't - but is there really a majority of collectors who care about ?? (after all, there's still the locality description field to add this information).

pH

27th Mar 2006 14:31 UTCChristof Schäfer Manager

From my point of view a hierarchy taking care of a geological context is the better way to describe localities and their ordering. So we share the same opinion. But in the past (for me) it has caused some difficulties to apply a system of political ordering and for that your note was support.

The intermediate level "Mayen-Mendig area" will resolve the problem with the two localities on Hochstein Mt. However there are two more groups that need to be joined by "geological brackets".

-"In der Ahl", Mayen + Hochsimmer Mt. St. Johann

- Rieden Mt., Volkesfeld + Rodder Höfe, Ettringen + Kappiger Lay, Wehr

In my opinion a "Rieden volcano" should be treated in a similar way as "Laach lake volcanic complex"

Christof

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 9, 2024 08:39:38

Go to top of page