Home PageMindat NewsThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusManagement TeamContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatSponsor a PageSponsored PagesTop Available PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralSearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
StatisticsThe ElementsMember ListBooks & MagazinesMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryHow to Link to MindatDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day Gallery
Steven Kuitems August 18, 2010 06:55PMHi Chet, are you interested in and have use for a few old California Journal of Mines and Geology volumes??
I have a smattering of these from the late 1920's to late 1940's. Please let me know and I can ship them to you or bring to the Franklin show at the end of Sept.
Anonymous User August 26, 2010 09:23PMChet,
We're gonna have to work on some of your mineral localities within boundaries of towns and state parks, etc. I understand you want to reference those towns and parks or other political boundaries because of other references, which often are inaccurate - so maybe descriptions in those distinct town or park locality pages would be more accurate than arbitrarily putting mineral localities into those jurisdictions where district levels exist?
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. August 27, 2010 05:10PMScott,
I think I understand what you are saying but I am not quite sure. Are you referring to those cases where a district may lie both within and outside of a special feature such as a National Park? I include these select features into a locality chain due to the significant difference in the access and ability to collect versus the National Forests, which are far less restricted.
Populated places are designated by the nearest one to the locality, as is USGS practice. Are you referring to those instances wherein the munipality may not lie in another feature, such as a nearby mountain range?
Can you point to some examples for me to evaluate? There will be need for much tweeking once I finish the data extraction cards and tidy up the remaining localities extracted from MRDS by Dave's bot program. If there are glaring errors we can adjust them now; otherwise, I would prefer to wait until all files are in the same format where changes can be made area by area - it should be easier at that point. You might have noticed that occasionally I find a small rats nest of localities with obvious problems and address them on-the-spot. Again, you know much more than I do about California geography and mining districts so I appreciate the oversight and discussion.
Anonymous User August 27, 2010 08:14PMHi Chet,
Here's a couple of examples of locality string errors resulting from changes you've made:
Carmelita Mine: http://www.mindat.org/loc-73296.html
The Carmelita mine is a unpatented lode mining claim, within a parcel of unappropriated public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest. This deposit is not located within the jurisdictional land boundaries of the city of Warner Springs. The mine sits on the ridge which divides Chihuahua Valley from the Indian Flats area. I've been debating whether to incorporate either of these names into the locality string.
Cryo-Genie Mine: http://www.mindat.org/loc-15973.html
The Cryo-Genie mine is a unpatented lode mining claim, within public domain lands of the Cleveland National Forest that are open to mineral entry and jointly managed by the Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service. This deposit is not located within the jurisdictional land boundaries of the city of Warner Springs, and is not within the jurisdictional land boundaries of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. The mine actually sits on the ridge that divides Ward Canyon and Agua Caliente Creek, which are the closest named features. I've been debating whether to incorporate either of these names into the locality string.
BAT Pocket: http://www.mindat.org/loc-55915.html
Inadvertently, when you made these changes, you also severed the sublocality string for the Cryo-Genie BAT pocket.
I would appreciate if we discuss these types of changes in advance, at least for the pegmatite localities that I am working on. You should be aware that regulatory agencies are using the database on mindat to advance their agenda, and have been suggesting that the areas listed within the city limits of Warner Springs on mindat are now within their jurisdiction, based solely on those changes you've made.
I know it seems silly, and obviously a legally untenable position, but some of these younger people thrust into positions of regulatory authority are not necessarily as well educated in these matters as you or I am. The guys at the Cryo-Genie have already encountered serious permitting delays and problems based on these simple erroneous changes to the locality string on mindat, which is why I feel we should more careful when listing localities as a sublocality within a particular government jurisdiction, and think of unintended consequences.
In other words we should expect that if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
In these cases, the "District" is already named after the nearest populated area or major landmark, which is Warner Springs, and the city of Warner Springs is listed as a distinct, separate locality or point of reference in that District-wide area, so searches are not hindered by the separation in the locality string. In this case, I'd prefer to keep it that way. The same would apply to the Pala District, and the Cahuilla District, etc. Of course these were never official organized mining districts, but the segregation of the deposits into a district format helps to alleviate problems of perceived authority, and narrow the search results into a tidy package of reasonable and relevant data.
I appreciate the work your doing, and I enjoy our discussions. We can discuss the merits of using Hanks as a genuine reference for localities he never described at a future time. ;)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2010 08:30PM by Scott L. Ritchie.
Alfredo Petrov August 27, 2010 10:10PMNot necessarily disagreeing with either of you gentlemen, Chet or Scott, but keep in mind that a hierarchy level on Mindat (like "Warner Springs" ) does not in any way imply political jurisdiction. The names of populated places (like Warner Springs) are generally far better known, and easier to find on a road map, than obscure Flats, and so there is a long tradition among collectors, museums, literature authors, of listing the nearest populated place on locality labels. It makes collectors' lives easier and, again, is not intended to imply any legal or political jurisdiction. If we start eliminating from Mindat locality hierarchies all levels that are not jurisdictional, we open an immense can of worms, and a lot of work, for many parts of the globe, not just California. So I would vote not to remove Warner Springs from the locality string, if that is the nearest named populated place.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2010 10:12PM by Alfredo Petrov.
Anonymous User August 27, 2010 10:45PMHi Alfredo,
I agree with you about populated places, the main point I am trying to make is avoiding the use of political boundaries, which in this case would be inclusion of the Cryo-Genie mine into the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, when it is not even close to those boundaries, let alone within the geographic boundaries. I have no problem including the nearest populated town in the strings, although they should definitely be below the District in the string hierarchy, because many Districts encompass multiple populated places.
IMO, the localities within the State Park system, Wilderness management areas, or National Parks etc. should be referenced to in the individual locality text. If we start (which we have) using arbitrary political boundaries which are subject to future changes, the workload will be unnecessarily increased in order to make appropriate changes to hundreds or thousands of individual strings to maintain accuracy, plus it increases the likelihood of errors like the ones I am pointing out here, and all those devilish complications that can arise.
Just trying to point out the impact and unforeseen consequences of our actions here, so we can minimize them where possible and prudent.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. August 27, 2010 11:04PMIn these cases Warner Springs is the nearest populated place on the maps. There is nothing whatsoever that dictates that a location must be within the jurisdictional boundary of the nearest populated place to list that ppl in the string. As Alfredo pointed out, using only the nearest (and often obscure) geograhical/topographical features would provide little assistance to Mindat users. If these features are not listed in the USGS GNIS database (or the Yale/Peabody GNIS database), then they would only provide confusion outside the context of a readily identifiable ppl or other major feature. Only listing a municipal or other ppl name in cases wherein the mine etc. lies within the municipal corporate limit or recognized town "boundary" would result in very, very few localities being attributed to a named ppl. This is not to mention the tremendous amount of work involved in changing it across the database (can't have a relatively limitless number of policies for this aspect of input), and the relatively useless remnant locality files gathering dust in Mindat.
If regulators are intent on acting like idiots, there is little we can do to stop them. Blaming their actions on Mindat is absurd. Connecting a locality with a municipal jurisdiction by mentioning the jurisdiction in Mindat (an unofficial, private, international reference database) as the nearest ppl, versus making a legal/official regulatory decision/actions based on legal maps and plots of incorporated areas, or other official legal documents, is absolutely, and insanely absurd. Which regulatory agency are we talking about in this instance????
As far as the district name (in this case) already including "Warner Springs," does not necessarily mean that all of the localities within the district are closer to Warner Springs than to another named ppl. That may be the case, but it may not. In many districts this is not the case. Again, we would be generating special rules for single localities or groups of localities, which we try to avoid.
If I had noted that I had severed the link with the BAT pocket I would have immediately fixed it. I am fixing analogous situations almost daily as I modify locality strings. This one can easily be fixed. There have been repeated conversations among management on Mindat regarding the inclusion of sub-localities within mines. Right now they are still in, but are discouraged unless truly exceptional. This no judgement on this particular instance.
I don't mind posting a discussion/proposed course of action on these localities in the future. I am nearing completion on my input based on data extraction over the past several years. After that, I will be working almost exclusively with the existing data in Mindat which was extracted from the USGS MRDS by Dave's bot program. As I stated in an earlier post, I will complete the MRDS tidy up for San Diego County first, Imperial County next, and then turn these 2 counties over to you. Riverside County is one of the really big ones and will wait its turn.
I added in the distance statistics for the Carmelita to clearly reflect its distance from Warner Springs. The Carmelita string could include the element: "Chihuahua Valley - Indian Flats divide," while the Cryo-Genie can similarly contain the element: "Ward Canyon - Agua Caliente Creek divide."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2010 11:12PM by Chester S. Lemanski, Jr..
Anonymous User August 28, 2010 12:06AMHi Chet,
Thanks, I had already noted the distance from Warner Springs in the Carmelita locality text under the Setting heading, so deleted your addition, but included the distance in kilometers as has been suggested by Jolyon. Of course when I get around to editing these specific localities I will update the distance references to include standard and metric. There is no rush, I just wanted to point out these types of errors I have noticed.
When I get started again after your work is completed, I will be sure to include the nearest named town or populated place in the locality hierarchy string, underneath the district holder.
I am not attributing overzealous regulators' actions as the responsibility of mindat, but simply letting you know that mindat has now (apparently) overtaken these other gps driven mineral data sources as the "go-to" source for information by many regulatory agencies. This is obviously a testament to the great work of the contributors here, yourself included (obviously). I don't feel comfortable putting the heat on any specific agency, nor do I feel that it would solve any particular issue at this point in time. I hope you understand my feelings on this.
Thanks again, I love discussing these things with you and Alfredo and the group as a whole, and I appreciate you taking the time to make corrections, suggestions, and clarity of policy etc.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. August 28, 2010 06:38PMLyla,
The Red Ledge Mine, Washington, Nevada County, California, is in the Washington District (Omega District). If you go to the file for the District, the Red Ledge is in the clump of mines depicted on the map with the Mindat tourmaline icons. It is at the lower left of the clump. Placing your cursor over the icons will reveal their identity. I hope that this answers your question. Thanks for your continued interest in Mindat.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. August 29, 2010 09:53PMThe reference is the one on the locality page for the district:
Murdoch, Joseph & Robert W. Webb (1966), Minerals of California, Centennial Volume (1866-1966): California Division of Mines & Geology Bulletin 189: 545.
The entry for the "Omega District" among the list of California mining districts on that page refers you to the Washington District.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. September 08, 2010 05:17PMScott,
I have arrived at my data card for the Vanderburg Mine, Pala. The data I have include additional species (Phenakite, Topaz, Stibiotantalite, Heterosite, Triplite, Vivianite, Pucherite, Cookeite and Bertrandite), not yet listed (references include Janhs & Wright (1951) and Pemberton (1983). There are also additional references to Cleavelandite, Sicklerite and Purpurite. Do you have these on your to-do list? Can I add them??
Anonymous User September 08, 2010 10:38PMChet,
Your merge of the Vanderberg mine with the KC Naylor mine was totally inappropriate and unacceptable.
Additionally, you need to stop using references that pre-date the discovery of the deposit(s). It is impossible to use a reference to a text older than the deposit discovery as a bona fide mineral ID reference.
There is no topaz known from the Pala District. Is this another Pemberton reference? I warned you in advance about how inaccurate the Pemberton book is, please stop using it on the localities I am working on without checking his references in advance.
You have now increased my work load for naught and jacked up another two pegmatite localities. Are you done monkey wrenching yet? B)-
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2010 09:39AM by Scott L. Ritchie.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. September 09, 2010 01:51AMI'm trying to keep this civil at the moment. Based on the changes log for this locality, it was merged almost exactly one year ago, apparently predicated upon the posting of a photo by someone else:
21/Sep/09 22:22 Update by Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Changed name from 'Vanderberg Mine (MS 5391; Vanderburg; Vandenburg; Naylor-Vanderburg; Sickler; Naylor Rock), Hiriart Mountain (Heriart; Heriot; Hiriat Hill), Pala District, San Diego Co., California, USA' to 'Vanderberg Mine (MS 5391; Vanderburg; Vandenburg; Naylor-Vanderburg; K.C. Naylor Mine; Sickler; Naylor Rock), Hiriart Mountain (Heriart; Heriot; Hiriat Hill), Pala District, San Diego Co., California, USA'
Changed Lat/Long from '33/22/33N 117/2/11W' to '33/22/33N 117/2/11W'
21/Sep/09 22:23 AUTO MERGED with entry 55869
25/Aug/04 11:05 New entry by Dr. Robert Lavinsky (email@example.com)
Added name 'Naylor Rock, Pala, San Diego Co., California, USA '
Added Lat/Long '// //'
26/Aug/04 00:01 Added minerals - by Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
The photo was apparently that of elbaite and the way it was titled led to this action. I added the elbaite based on this. You were not yet on my radar one year ago! Dividing the file back out may be a bit of work, but hardly a major onerous project. I have had to undo many such mergers in the past.
The topaz issue is based on a Murdoch & Webb entry citing Jahns and Wright (1951), page 31.
You have now increased my work load for not and jacked up another two pegmatite localities. Are you done monkey wrenching yet?
I have been trying to cooperate with you since you came up on my radar. The reason you responded today is because I reached out to you prior to making any more changes to this file. I have repeatedly stated that I am not an expert on California and that I am tackling a large project to improve the chaos with this state in view of its significance. By the way, the word is naught, not "not." By the way, I don't even own a monkey wrench.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2010 01:56AM by Chester S. Lemanski, Jr..
Anonymous User September 09, 2010 08:14AMChet,
Thanks for catching my typo.
Now, if you would have looked, I had already placed the Naylor Rock locality under the Vanderberg mine. The problem is Rob didn't search for the locality, so he added it again. He has had a tendency of doing this in the past. If you would have looked at Hiriart Mountain, you would have seen that there was already a locality entry covering Naylor Rock, which is really a sub locality of the Vanderberg mine.
The KC Naylor mine is a separate locality and pegmatite, and my text for both sites was completely distinct and also addressed the whole name and location confusion issue. If you would have read the two page texts prior to combining the two localities into one text, you wouldn't have made such a glaring error. I spent years putting the data together, you destroyed my efforts in a matter of minutes, and mucked up history once again for the masses. You could have easily emailed me based on the page changes log, but I never heard from you. Why naught?(sic) B)
So, please, no worries, and you should know by now I respect you like the mindat brother you are to me... but you have made dozens of changes after promising me you would consult with me prior to making them, some of which we have already discussed after the fact via email. I understand the frustration both ways, so maybe you can forgive me for rattling your cage, esp. considering the extra work that will have to be done based on some of these errors we have already discussed, and many more which I know I will have to correct.
Don't even get me going on your uncommon list of references based on date versus the common use of alphabetical order refined by date! This creates more problems than it's worth in my opinion. :P
Ah yes, the Pala topaz conundrum:
Page 31, Table 3 contains several entries which were observed by the authors, Jahns and Wright, which were later proven inconsistent or outright erroneous as reflected in later published data as well as later field observations during more recent mining activities.
From page 31 through 42 covering principal minerals and other minerals makes no mention of topaz, and there is only a mention of the chemical fluorine in 'pocket pegmatite' on page 21, which states "fluorine... or combinations of these elements".
The only mention of the mineral Topaz in the whole report is on page 27 for 'other units', described under 'replacement bodies' which says: "Numerous accessory species are present in some of the pegmatites, but rarely in more than very small quantities. They include... topaz".
It is impossible to attribute Topaz to a specific mine or prospect or pegmatite locality, based on Jahns data. I would say this could be a legacy artifact related to recycling data from earlier manuscripts published on other pegmatites by Jahns, if it is in fact an error.
Therefore, based solely on page 31, Table 3, the only localities in Pala using this chart as a nebulous reference for topaz (which is likely erroneous in my opinion,and should be noted as such), the species topaz would only apply to the page for Hiriart Mountain (not common occurrence), and the page for Chief Mountain (very rare occurrence). No specific mine site or prospect locality should be used for the Jahns and Wright 1951 reference.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2010 09:46AM by Scott L. Ritchie.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. September 09, 2010 12:50PMScott,
Thank you for your response. I am virtually done with the initial state of this project (I am now in the "V's"). There should be little, if any, additional issues with the files you have worked on. One thing to keep in mind is that it is Mindat policy to enter and retain species occurrence entries which are later found to be erroneous. They should be entered and categorized as "erroneously reported" on the entry page. This puts a black line through the entry and records the erroneous reference(s). This then presents anyone who later comes along with an intent to make the entry again clearly aware of the error and that there is no need to re-enter it because we have already been there. There have been quite a few instances wherein we have had the same same errors re-entered without this sort of indicator.
I apologize for any impact that I have had on your project. I will check all files in the San Diego-Imperial-Riverside Counties for any efforting on your part. If there is any, I'll give you a push first.
I am absolutely certain that when I am done with the California files that there will be many errors based on the literature, MRDS, myself and other factors (such as a lack of data in the literature). I have corrected many hundreds, if not thousands, of errors during the course of this project. This includes placing names on occurrences which Murdoch & Webb listed as unnamed, and the elimination of hundreds of duplicated localities. This process is multi-step and requires validation of physical location by description in the literature & MRDS, so far as is possible based on the data present. There are still mining districts where the MRDS coordinates for individual mines place them far outside the boundaries of the mining districts in which they are situated according to MRDS. Eventually, the California project will require the efforts of a greater number of California collectors to fill in the blanks. My collecting group records GPS coordinates of localities which we visit, but, at best, that is a very few localities, especially in California.
Chester S. Lemanski, Jr. September 11, 2010 06:16PMScott,
I have additional data on the Vista Chief. Alternate names are: Moosa Canyon deposit; Freeman deposit. Kunzite is listed as unverified (Kunz; F.J.H. Merrill - both references you already have in the file). I also have multiple references for Ferroaxinite (Schaller (1911b); W.A. Deer et al (1962, Vol. 1: 322; F.H. Weber (1963a): 114; and Sanero & Gottard (1968): 1408). Are you waiting to do additional work on this locality?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
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 1993-2017, except where stated. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2017, except where stated. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.