Based on the info if you click into them, likely no. I would have expected them to be incidental materials from tunneling, but reading the description that's not the case.
The US, like many countries and regions, has poor coverage of abandoned, closed, and shuttered mine sites despite such sites still posing an ongoing danger in terms of imminent physical danger (collapse, decay, etc) and untreated waste piles and ponds leaching toxins into ground waters, etc.
To answer the question posed, "how many (US?) mine sites pose a danger of type {X}" requires crawling the US BLM datasets, the OSHA datasets, the archived (from when active) MSHA datasets, and having a some luck onside for various specific sites due to large gaps and periods of not caring at all.
Various transnational global mining companies (Rio Tinto, et al) have extensive datasets on global resources and minesites, both operational, and past and potential future sites.
This doesn't seem to be complete. It's missing the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, for example, which should be southeast of Carlsbad, NM. It's a underground salt (metal/non-metal) mine, and MSHA definitely regulates it
This seems to include cement works and other processing plants that have somewhat mine-like output but aren't actually extracting anything from the ground at that site.
I see quarries everywhere, and they’re kind of required near any city or road project around Australia. Never considered them as a mine though… more like a ‘general resource site’?
Wouldn't that also filter out every open cut surface mine that strips overburden and directly extracts near surface coal, copper deposits, iron ore, etc.
Not every mine is a "classic" underground mine with tunnels, etc.
See (for example) the W.Australian SuperPit gold mine which consolidated every shaft mine in a particular region into a single open pit that goes deeper than any pre existing underground mine in that area.
The US government has been pretty good about cleaning up the UXO it knows about, which means what's left is the UXO it doesn't know about. You'll find it near most of the current and former testing ranges, particularly Yuma Proving Ground where there's trails leading right from the adjacent BLM land into areas with potential UXO. The only real barriers are a few signs and the law.
I'm pretty sure for me "mining.fyi" wouldn't have created any associations with landmines (although "mines.fyi" does seem to match the contents of the website closer).
It'd be really interesting to see A/B testing results about what most people associate the word "mines" with (I wouldn't be surprised if that would be landmines in this day and age).
It includes what most would call quarries and it doesn't include anywhere near all of them (there are basically infinite invisible quarries everywhere to make concrete because it doesn't transport well).
Please reduce the aggregation of map markers. It's not helpful to group every mine in southwest US in a single point in California that makes it look like they are none in any other state. I see this all the time on maps and it's really frustrating. Aggregate markers are helpful when the individual points are actually overlapping on the map, otherwise they obscure location data.
Strong disagree — aggregate markers were super useful when browsing the map on mobile! Maybe need to add a flag for mobile vs. desktop, but the experience would be a lot worse on mobile without them.
I tried it on mobile. The clustering reduces it to 6 points for all of North America. My phone has over 3 million pixels, surely there’s room for more detail than that.
Just a heads-up that this is nowhere near "all the mines" in Nevada.
I've explored quite a few personally, live by some, and that entire list of my memories is missing.
NV is also not included in the list of top 10 states which is a clear indicator of missing data fwiw.
I looked for all my local mines and none of them are on here. It seems that all of the listed mines for California are stone quarries. It omits the numerous other mines.
under 50, actual underground mines for metals, under 175 total open pit and underground mines for metal
the real numbers for rock quarys * are hidden, and I must assume that they are also
a small portion of the "total"
* sell actual blocks of stone vs gravel/fill/agregate
There seem to be more quarries in where I looked (near Reno) than mines. 16:1 in Allegheny is not on there - interesting place. It’s still semi active.
[OP] irasigman | a day ago
alexchamberlain | a day ago
leeter | a day ago
greggsy | 22 hours ago
kenforthewin | a day ago
Exuma | a day ago
dboreham | 21 hours ago
defrost | 20 hours ago
To answer the question posed, "how many (US?) mine sites pose a danger of type {X}" requires crawling the US BLM datasets, the OSHA datasets, the archived (from when active) MSHA datasets, and having a some luck onside for various specific sites due to large gaps and periods of not caring at all.
See:
* https://www.epa.gov/epcra/does-msha-have-jurisdiction-over-i...
* https://www.blm.gov/programs/aml-environmental-cleanup/aml
Various transnational global mining companies (Rio Tinto, et al) have extensive datasets on global resources and minesites, both operational, and past and potential future sites.
jeffbee | 20 hours ago
SaberTail | a day ago
greggsy | 22 hours ago
snypher | 21 hours ago
SaberTail | 4 hours ago
advisedwang | a day ago
bombcar | 21 hours ago
nektro | 23 hours ago
HardwareLust | 23 hours ago
buildbot | 22 hours ago
simonw | 23 hours ago
(I guess technically a "surface mine" for "Construction Sand and Gravel".)
maxbond | 23 hours ago
greggsy | 22 hours ago
dboreham | 22 hours ago
defrost | 21 hours ago
Not every mine is a "classic" underground mine with tunnels, etc.
See (for example) the W.Australian SuperPit gold mine which consolidated every shaft mine in a particular region into a single open pit that goes deeper than any pre existing underground mine in that area.
w10-1 | 23 hours ago
koshergweilo | 23 hours ago
No, these are the cool ones that take stuff out of the ground, not the ones that destroy everything above them
buildbot | 22 hours ago
AlotOfReading | 21 hours ago
guessmyname | 22 hours ago
jedberg | 22 hours ago
Then I clicked on one and saw it was the name of our local rock quarry. :)
andrew_mason1 | 9 hours ago
rpozarickij | 7 hours ago
It'd be really interesting to see A/B testing results about what most people associate the word "mines" with (I wouldn't be surprised if that would be landmines in this day and age).
tastyfreeze | 22 hours ago
https://mrdata.usgs.gov/
bombcar | 21 hours ago
greggsy | 22 hours ago
pimlottc | 21 hours ago
phillipseamore | 21 hours ago
nick49488171 | 19 hours ago
charv | 19 hours ago
pimlottc | 7 hours ago
Firehawke | 17 hours ago
pimlottc | 7 hours ago
alan_sass | 21 hours ago
jeffbee | 20 hours ago
LowLevelKernel | 20 hours ago
thirtygeo | 17 hours ago
doe88 | 12 hours ago
utool | 12 hours ago
metalman | 9 hours ago
* sell actual blocks of stone vs gravel/fill/agregate
jmspring | 7 hours ago
lattrommi | 6 hours ago
Wonder why mines located in Ohio, show up in Greenland, Central America and the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
On closer inspection, the Lat/Long are switched on some of these anomalies. I did not check them all.