Show HN: Mines.fyi – all the mines in the US in a leaflet visualization

2/20/2026 at 11:42:29 PM

I don't know why, but when I read the title I assumed the map was about landmines.

No, these are the cool ones that take stuff out of the ground, not the ones that destroy everything above them

by koshergweilo

2/21/2026 at 12:17:00 AM

Same! And then I saw three near my house and thought "if they know where they are, why haven't they been removed???"

Then I clicked on one and saw it was the name of our local rock quarry. :)

by jedberg

2/21/2026 at 3:39:55 PM

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).

by rpozarickij

2/23/2026 at 1:30:50 AM

Even "mine.fyi" would be better at not making me think "landmine", although that would instead get read as "belonging to me".fyi.

I assume this is probably because most people don't see mines (as in gold mines) mentioned in plural very often. Or if someone does refer to multiple mines at once, they usually also specify the type of mine at the same time, like, "the cadmium mines in [country]" or similar. Or if talking about old, abandoned mines in an area, they're usually referred to as such.

The word "mines" on its own without an adjective usually does mean landmines, I think.

(I also immediately assumed this was about landmines.)

by hogwasher

2/21/2026 at 12:14:36 AM

Oh! I thought it was landmines too and was very confused + concerned when I saw dots near where I live.

by guessmyname

2/21/2026 at 1:10:04 PM

hey now, landmines destroy stuff below them too

by andrew_mason1

2/20/2026 at 11:51:27 PM

I had exactly the same thought, and was quite intrigued. Very disappointed actually, it would be cool if there was open data about land mines.

by buildbot

2/21/2026 at 1:17:28 AM

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.

by AlotOfReading

2/22/2026 at 9:31:48 AM

Cleaned up on their own territory. UXO are still a danger in other countries, such as Laos.

by getwiththeprog

2/21/2026 at 12:48:21 AM

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.

by pimlottc

2/21/2026 at 2:53:57 AM

Agreed. Huge annoyance when looking for routes on MountainProject as one example.

by nick49488171

2/21/2026 at 1:03:14 AM

True. Clustering on a map is usually a sign that a map was setup by someone that doesn't use it or has no interest in the data.

by phillipseamore

2/21/2026 at 2:59:50 AM

[dead]

by vscode-rest

2/21/2026 at 3:14:58 AM

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.

by charv

2/21/2026 at 2:55:11 PM

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.

by pimlottc

2/21/2026 at 4:56:18 AM

Strong disagree. Zoom in and the clusters break up. Without the clustering, the map is a total mess when zoomed out.

by Firehawke

2/21/2026 at 2:56:47 PM

There’s a place for clustering but it doesn’t need to be so aggressive

by pimlottc

2/21/2026 at 12:20:05 AM

USGS MRDATA has a lot more mines. Their data is also freely available for download. I use their datasets and base maps for my personal GIS projects.

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/

by tastyfreeze

2/21/2026 at 1:02:13 AM

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).

by bombcar

2/20/2026 at 11:05:08 PM

I saw your title and my first thought was "Why are there landmines in the US?" lol.

by HardwareLust

2/20/2026 at 11:55:06 PM

Apparently there are in fact, 0. Publicly, at least.

by buildbot

2/21/2026 at 1:42:16 AM

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.

by alan_sass

2/20/2026 at 10:01:10 PM

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

by SaberTail

2/21/2026 at 12:22:09 AM

The state numbers don’t seem to marry up, unless they’re indicative of something else?

by greggsy

2/21/2026 at 12:48:59 AM

WIPP isn't really a mine, right? More like an Amazon warehouse.

by snypher

2/21/2026 at 6:28:52 PM

as far as MSHA is concerned it is. They take salt out of the ground to make room for the waste.

by SaberTail

2/20/2026 at 9:52:45 PM

I'm glad it's those kinds of mines rather than the ones I first thought of.

by kenforthewin

2/20/2026 at 9:27:43 PM

Downloaded from https://www.msha.gov/data-and-reports/mine-data-retrieval-sy.... Pipe-delimited, updated weekly by MSHA.

by irasigman

2/20/2026 at 9:44:57 PM

There are 3 mines on Manhattan; is that correct?

by alexchamberlain

2/20/2026 at 9:53:48 PM

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.

by leeter

2/21/2026 at 12:26:20 AM

Quarries?

by greggsy

2/21/2026 at 2:28:12 AM

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.

by jeffbee

2/21/2026 at 10:35:25 AM

I was trying to figure out where to send my son to work this summer. This makes it easier. Thank, very cool!

by utool

2/21/2026 at 4:22:58 PM

Set state to Ohio. Set status to Abandoned.

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.

by lattrommi

2/20/2026 at 11:26:30 PM

TIL there's a mine within San Francisco city limits! https://mines.fyi/mine/0405261

(I guess technically a "surface mine" for "Construction Sand and Gravel".)

by simonw

2/20/2026 at 11:28:03 PM

Once you learn how to spot these you'll see them everywhere on road trips and such.

by maxbond

2/21/2026 at 12:24:56 AM

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’?

by greggsy

2/21/2026 at 12:43:48 AM

The data set includes gravel pits. You can filter them out by selecting "Underground" for "Type".

by dboreham

2/21/2026 at 1:26:15 AM

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.

by defrost

2/20/2026 at 10:58:53 PM

I love the idea of a site like this existing but the expanding dots is a really bad way to visualize this.

by nektro

2/21/2026 at 3:43:03 PM

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.

by jmspring

2/20/2026 at 10:42:51 PM

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.

by advisedwang

2/21/2026 at 1:02:48 AM

And it doesn't include all of those.

by bombcar

2/20/2026 at 11:30:19 PM

Can't see a thing. Dark on dark in Safari 26.3.

by w10-1

2/21/2026 at 1:43:23 PM

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

by metalman

2/21/2026 at 5:43:41 AM

Add Canada! Every province has a GIS repository of mines

by thirtygeo

2/20/2026 at 9:53:44 PM

How many of these pose asbestos hazards like the Libby mine?

by Exuma

2/21/2026 at 1:37:49 AM

The Libby mine isn't in the data set because it's no longer operational.

by dboreham

2/21/2026 at 1:53:22 AM

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.

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.

by defrost

2/21/2026 at 2:29:11 AM

The map has a "Status" predicate.

by jeffbee

2/21/2026 at 10:25:23 AM

Very dense, there is no mineshaft gap left!

by doe88

2/21/2026 at 12:21:00 AM

Is oil considered a mined mineral, or just shale oil?

by greggsy

2/21/2026 at 2:42:32 AM

Why is it active post 2001? What purpose?

by LowLevelKernel