SUPPORT US. If mindat.org is important to you, click here to donate to our Fall 2019 fundraiser!
Log InRegister
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsBooks & Magazines
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryMineral Photography

LocalitiesHabach bridge, Bramberg am Wildkogel, Zell am See District, Salzburg, Austria

21st Oct 2019 11:38 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

This locality raises an important question about how we name localities.

"Habach bridge" in this case refers to minerals found in boulders from the stream below the bridge.

Although this may be a traditional short way of describing the locality for people who know the place, I think we need to change names such as this because, critically the minerals listed were not found within the structure of the bridge itself.

There may well be cases where a bridge is constructed from local material and the minerals are visible within the bridge itself, and in these cases the bridge is a suitable locality.

So we should probably change to 'Stream at Habach bridge', and the type of locality becomes a stream.   

Pointing this out because there are probably many other examples of this.    




21st Oct 2019 12:02 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

So we should probably change to 'Stream at Habach bridge', and the type of locality becomes a stream. 
 I agree.

21st Oct 2019 12:23 UTCKeith Compton Manager

So if the boulders in the creek fell down from the valley/cliff wall, how would you differentiate?

I would have thought it better to call it simply:

 X mineral locality (or unnamed mineral locality), Bramberg am Wildkogel, Mittersill, Zell am See District, Salzburg, Austria.

The locality description would contain info as to where the locality is, how to get there or whatever - in the stream, on the cliff wall etc.

The type of locality is also provided separately.

It's really no different from where we have a locality shown as the nearest village - without spelling "exactly" where it is.

I think that this is opening a worthless can of worms.

Further:
I don't think that anyone would presume that Habach Bridge indicates that minerals are found in/on the bridge itself - unless of course Habach Bridge also happens to be a town/place.

Saying that a bridge constructed of particular material is a "suitable locality" to be entered into Mindat also seems unreasonable. Does that mean we have for example, Tower Bridge as a locality for Cornish granite (which presumably contains feldspar, quartz and the like) and Portland stone or similar for any other bridge for whatever it is made of - surely not.



21st Oct 2019 13:41 UTCHarjo Neutkens Manager

Maybe scrap such spots in the riverbed and list all the minerals found in the riverbed as 'Habach river, etc' It's of no interest where exactly in the river a mineral was found in alluvial material.

21st Oct 2019 13:48 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I disagree. the position is important as it puts a limit on where the source exposure could have been (ie not downstream of that point)

21st Oct 2019 13:54 UTCKevin Conroy Expert

This may need to be done on a case-by-case method.   For instance, the Cove Creek Bridge ( https://www.mindat.org/loc-188607.html ) in Magnet Cove, Arkansas denotes an area in the creek near the bridge.   I've found pyrite crystals in the stream on both sides of the bridge, while "The Branch" offers a larger variety of minerals.   Without the "Cove Creek Bridge" identifier it would be more difficult to describe where in Cove Creek this mineral locality is.


21st Oct 2019 14:08 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Cove Creek Bridge area would be sensible then in this case.  

21st Oct 2019 14:12 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

This opens a whole can of worms. I think that a near is implied for most locality names.
The street names in New York do not imply that the specimens were found under the roadbed. Most localities that had Lake in the name were not found in the lakes themselves. Localities that are towns or villages are not necessarily in the village. 

21st Oct 2019 14:32 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Yes but New York in this case is a regional name not a specific locality point. 
[Edit - the street junctions themselves are another example  See below]  

We shouldn't assume 'near'.

164th Street & Broadway

If the minerals were found in the construction of the road junction, fine.  But if they were found in general construction work in that area, what is wrong with actually saying that eg

164th Street & Broadway area

Can of worms opened. Let's deal with it.

21st Oct 2019 14:41 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

And Lake localities are a real problem! 

21st Oct 2019 14:47 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I'm not saying that fixing these in the system at the moment is a priority, but please think about this issue when adding new localities or when updating them.

21st Oct 2019 18:43 UTCMark Heintzelman Expert

Personally I don't see any rational need to be concern over this.  Some logical assumptions I assume have long been made for localities like these . . . not actually floating in the lake, not actual found in the bridge itself, or actually on the surface of the street, road or avenue . . . etc.   With urban construction projects, street designation and building/construction sites are perfectly logical choices for siting these occurrences.  Best to leave any greater detail to the site descriptions.  If oddly enough, the minerals are found in the bridge itself, then make note of it in the description.  If site descriptions are not being provided, then that's the problem that actually needs some attention.

22nd Oct 2019 12:51 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

"Cove Creek Bridge and The Branch" Changed to
Cove Creek Bridge and The Branch area


 
Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Public Relations by Blytheweigh.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2019, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: November 13, 2019 05:08:25
Go to top of page