Thank you for the clarifications, Michael.

As regards
Because things in our OSM-taxonomy FULFIL the needs with POIs on the
ground - if there is a kind of shop where you can get bottled, fresh air
to breathe as part of the alternative economy, feel free to add it ☺.

No, a shop for bottled air would represent privatization of the air and would go counter to the spirit of the commons. However, there are organizations which work to protect air quality or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and which you can join if you also want to do something to help in that endeavor. These organizations have addresses. And I think we should include them because air and the atmosphere are so vital. The same goes, for example, for organizations that work to protect water quality in river drainage basins or in the sea.

Liebe Silke,
Entschuldige bitte falls meine Email etwas schroff erschien - ich war allerdings etwas frustriert, weil ich beim Workshop in Leipzig einige Ideen eingebracht habe, die ich in der neuesten Fassung der Taxonomie nicht finden konnte.

All the best,
Wolfgang

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [maps] Hat jemand dies gelesen???? -> Explanation for the
current status of the OSM taxonomy proposal
From: Michael Maier <Michael.Maier@student.tugraz.at>
Date: Wed, September 24, 2014 10:44 am
To: maps@list.allmende.io

On 24/09/14 09:41, Wolfgang Hoeschele wrote:
> Liebe Leute, dear friends,
> Hat jemand diese meine Email zur Kenntnis genommen? Has anybody read this?

Dear Wolfgang,

I've read it, but the answer would have been too complex to give in a
short E-Mail.

Let's clarify some points:
The Taxonomy you see in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:KartenKarsten/futureMap
is for writing a Tagging-proposal to the OpenStreetMap-community.
But Transformap is much bigger than OpenStreetMap alone (Yesterday I've
added a short explanation on top of this page, comments welcome.).

We now have reached the point in our taxonomy (Some of You will not like
to hear this…), where we have to differentiate between which items
fitting into OpenStreetMap (most of the Items you see in the OSM-Wiki
page), and which do not fit into OSM.
We have to see our taxonomy from two different point of views:
• the whole thing, with all the additions Wolfgang proposed
• a subset of this, which fits into OpenStreetMap.

Transformap is not OpenStreetMap only (but sadly, OSM is the only part
working at the moment), it will be much more. Other databases should
provide e.g. photos, events, connections and all the other things
(wishes, needs from all kind of beings).

So, the 'whole' taxonomy will have to include all things anyone wishes
for, setting standards to enable all these different databases to
communicate to each other. I'm unsure if the OSM Wiki is the right place
to develop the all-embracing thing.

But I can clarify which items should be in the OSM-part of the taxonomy:
• 'ground truth' - Points and Places everyone can see if standing in
front of it
• if they are roughly permanent installations, → no events
• properties of all objects, which are made public by these objects,
e.g. name, address, contact information available on a door plate or website
• services a POI offers (covered by the fulfills_needs: part)
• identity they give themselves (e.g. solidarity_economy)

Also, some properties to NOT fit into OSM, e.g.:
• subjective opinions or ratings
• things that are not yet there (e.g. needs)
• trade routes or partners (subject to change often and OSM does not
provide the database structure to define such kind of connections)

So, to answer one of Wolfgang's questions: Why is there no need:air in
our taxonomy?
Because things in our OSM-taxonomy FULFIL the needs with POIs on the
ground - if there is a kind of shop where you can get bottled, fresh air
to breathe as part of the alternative economy, feel free to add it ☺.

The needs Wolfgang mentioned would fit in the 'whole thing', and also
our “fulfills_needs:*” should be (as complementary side) part of it.


I hope to clarify some points, if not throw some empty beer bottles or
questions on my head.

Best wishes,
Michael (on behalf of the OpenStreetMap community)


> I would like the favor of a reply. Ich wäre für eine Antwort dankbar.
>
> Best wishes, schöne Grüße,
> Wolfgang
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [maps] Taxonomie -> Auf zum Endspurt, Jetzt!
> From: "Wolfgang Hoeschele" <whoeschele@commonsabundance.net
> <mailto:whoeschele@commonsabundance.net>>
> Date: Tue, September 23, 2014 6:07 pm
> To: "Adrien Labaeye" <adrienlabaeye@gmail.com
> <mailto:adrienlabaeye@gmail.com>>, "Silke Helfrich"
> <silke.helfrich@gmx.de ><mailto:silke.helfrich@gmx.de>>
> Cc: "14mmm_temporär" <maps@list.allmende.io
> <mailto:maps@list.allmende.io>>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> At the Leipzig meeting I had suggested creating a taxonomy that
> would be compatible with the taxonomy developed at the Commons
> Abundance Network, which is working on creating in-depth assessments
> of the systemic interactions and strengths and weaknesses of a
> variety of approaches to managing our common resources, and offers
> discussion forums on these topics. I still think this would be a
> good thing.
>
> Here are some "needs" categories from CAN (see
> http://commonsabundance.net/docs/nora-needs-organizational-forms-and-resources-for-abundance/)
> that I am missing in the Transformap taxonomy. I´ve arranged them in
> the order that they are listed on the page just mentioned; for many,
> you will find more explanation if you follow links from that page.
>
> 1. Air. If we fail to create effective commons for air and
> atmosphere, our climate system breaks down.
> 2. Water. Some exiting commons exist in this area, such as
> community-organized water distribution systems, water cooperatives.
> One should also consider municipally managed water distribution
> systems if they are organized with effective public control. And
> again, water is essential for life ("beverage" does not cover water
> - water is more fundamental, and is used for more than drinking; I´d
> say that beverages like juices, beer etc. are better included with
> food).
> 3. Being at home. This is more than just about having shelter - it´s
> about having a place where one fels at home. It´s a more diffuse
> type of commons, but I don´t think it should be ignored.
> 4. Supportive relationships - the community category may cover this,
> though I´m not sure. Any person creates a web or network of
> relationships, associating with some people for one area of life,
> with another group (that may or may not overlap with the first) for
> another area of life, etc. They do not all need to be one community.
> 5. Self-expression. Not listed at all in the present listing. I
> think that many arts-oriented initiatives should come under this
> heading.
> 6. Opportunities to learn. This is a more general category than
> "skills" or "knowledge" (the latter of which CAN lists as a resource
> rather than a need). The way "skills" are usually defined in our
> culture, we talk about more or less technical skills (how to do
> something). Knowledge, again as defined in our culture, usually
> refers to theoretical knowledge. There are also further things we
> can learn that do not fit either category, such as "phronesis" -
> knowing how to act under specific circumstances, based on lived
> experience, and involving value rationality. This is vital in
> commoning. So, I think it is important NOT to reduce learning to
> skills and knowledge alone.
> 7. Meaningful livelihoods. It is part of the crisis of our
> civilization that livelihoods all too often are not at all
> meaningful (what we find meaningful often does not allow us to make
> a living; what does provide lots of income is often extremely
> lacking in meaning). Commons can help to bring these two together.
> We also need to rethink work when production of many material things
> in our households requires less and less work.
> 8. Contemplative/spiritual connection. This I have not yet developed
> properly, but I do consider this an important need, and it should in
> some way be accommodated. Here I think it would be interesting to
> look for groups that pursue this in non-hierarchical ways that do
> not dictate which outcomes are supposed to emerge.
>
> The CAN list also includes items listed as "resources" which
> partially overlaps with the list of needs both in CAN and the
> Transformap listing. Air and Atmosphere and Water I have already
> mentioned. Here are several more:
> 9. Minerals. This is different from "land" in that we are talking
> about such things as iron, potassium, rare earth minerals etc. which
> are either needed in an industrial economy, or to maintain soil
> fertility. Here also it is important to think about how mineral
> resources could be managed as commons, such that for example the
> mining of lithium in the Andes benefits the ordinary people there
> and not just some big corporations.
> 10. Living things. This is a vast category, but we depend on other
> living things in a myriad of ways that go far beyond the food and
> beverage categories. This includes for example community-managed
> conservation areas.
> 11. Physical, human-made assets. This is a category that is far
> wider than "objects of utility"; it includes transportation
> networks, energy and communication utilities, buildings and
> assemblages of buildings (up to entire settlements, i.e. cities). I
> am referring here to the actual physical assets here, not just the
> services that they provide on a daily basis. All these can be run as
> commons.
> 12. Intangibles. This includes knowledge, but also such things as
> trust. How can we build, or rebuild, trust? I think this is a vital
> question.
>
> I would be happy to have a session with one or several of you to
> talk through these categories, for example using a Skype session. If
> we can make the CAN and Transformap taxonomies compatible, I think
> it would be great because the Transformap could show where all kinds
> of initiatives are located while CAN could provide reflective
> assessments and discussion forums about them.
>
> Please also note that if some of these categories are "empty sets"
> (there aren´t any mapped initiatives that fall into the category), I
> do not see this as a valid reason for not including them. Empty
> categories tell us either that this is an area where mapping still
> needs to take place, or that this is something where new forms of
> commons organization still need to be developed. Noting gaps of this
> kind is essential for pushing forward the movement.
>
> Further remarks regarding taxonomies - every kind of activity as
> reviewed in the CAN is seen as serving several needs, using several
> resources, and typically falling into several clusters of
> organizational forms (I haven´t gone through modes of organization
> at Transformap here, because each of these address attributes of
> many different organizational forms as categorized in CAN). Many
> different kinds of initiatives can address the same needs, or
> utilize the same kinds of resources. The tags for types of
> initiatives thus have to be in addition to tags for needs etc. I
> think this is already there in the structure for Transformap, but
> just think it needs to be made clear.
>
>
> All the best,
> Wolfgang



--
Michael Maier, Student of Telematics @ Graz University of Technology
OpenStreetMap Graz http://osm.org/go/0Iz@paV
http://wiki.osm.org/Graz
http://wiki.osm.org/Graz/Stammtisch

_______________________________________________
maps mailing list
maps@list.allmende.io
http://list.allmende.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/maps