The difference between mining and tunnelling is how long the tunnelers plan to stay
In mining, the primary goal is to extract material. If there's no material of interest further down and stability of the overburden isn't important, then there's nothing to stop miners from using the cheapest/fastest support methods. They only need the supports to last a few hours/days to get out the mineral of interest.
Tunnelling has the opposite goal, in that the material removed isn't the goal, it's a means to an end. Thus, the shape and stability of the hole are of utmost importance to a tunneller. They will invest more resources in maintaining strong supports.
To achieve our ends, we need to find a way to make the permanent nature of tunnels too expensive over relatively transient mining.
Hill/Mountain Composition
It's said that "No one conquers a mountain, they merely sneak up on it." This refers to the dynamic nature of the slopes of a mountain. Even in the summer, boulders can work themselves loose and fall. Rock fall in the winter is even more prolific. In this same vein, we can construct a mountain range that is seismically active enough and violent enough that maintaining tunnels is just too expensive. Given the more transient nature of a mines, when a mine collapses (and the funerals are over), miners can start working on a new mine. In this situation, mines sneak up on the mountain while tunnels attempt to conquer the mountain (which never lasts).
In addition to the seismic activity, if the mountains are a mix of softer and harder stone then we can expect that the frequent shakes will cause nonlinear pressures on the tunnel and mine walls.