(Simona) #16


I did something don’t know what exactly but added 2 websites also possible partners…
For the taxonomy: Ethical Finance, bio-constuction (Cob and all the rest) natural health and holistic centre they are missed and also social innovation, incubators or start-up.

The Global Ecovillage Network has a database an internal network with users lists: and a solution library

That’s all for my side tomorrow working more but I mean if I have to insert all the POIs … no way! ah ah ah

(Giuliana G.) #17

In thie “mapping month May” we are just testmapping. Please just map 1-2 initiatives as POIs
Many thanks !

(Simona) #18

Done but look there is a problem with the Networks
There are ecovillages that are only part of national ecovillages networks…initiatives also part of the national networks maps but not part of the Global Ecovillage Network so I would insert as category also Regional Ecovilage Network and national Ecovillage network, just to give clear info.

I did it let me know if it is ok :smiley:


(Thomas Kalka) #19

We will have one entry per network (which currently in mmm.3oe is a ressource) and links from an individual ecovillage (a poi) to all networks.
Does that make sense ?

Did you get noticed about my entry on the discussion page of one of your edits ?

Welcome on board!

(Simona) #20

No can you give me the link?

I didn’t understand…will you have one entry per national network, one entry per regional network, one entry per global network…and in case there are more?

and which will go to which?
I mean there are some ecovillages linked both to GEN and to FIC in USA, and here in Europe there are ecovillages that are not GEN members…

So I don’t think it is very functional…
But this is just my opinion :smiley:


(Thomas Kalka) #21

I suggest, that we enter some examples for this into together.

Could you write (here, as a reply) a short list of ecovillages which belong to different networks and a list of this networks ?

As I understood, there are at least this networks

Are there more networks, we should include ?

As second step, lets find some examples, which are part of different of these networks …

Look for example atÖkodorf_Sieben_Linden
It is part of (at least) two different networks: GEN Europe and FIC

(Simona) #22

Dear Toka,

this is good for Sieben Linden because as far as I know there is no national network in Germany but for example in Italy and in Spain as well as in France you have ecovillage national networks
So I propose to leave it at : network belonging without suggesting which network and allow users to fill it in so that the map can also expand on an peer2peer base.

Let’s try to do not set limits I think the map it is done to evolve on time, is is a fluid map not a static one, isnt’ it?

Here a small example of taxonomy we are developing for human sustainable settlements specifically. Could you please tell me where is the discussion about taxonomy I have some proposals…

(Thomas Kalka) #23

For the moment:

(Silke ) #24

Dear Simona, welcome on board,…

thank you so much for your valuable feedback: we need to collect this as taxonomy group and reflect upon:

As our taxonomy is based on needs, I don’t know exactly what you’re missing:
health (is there), “housing” is there etc;

As for the Ecovillage Networks: It seems to me that the easiest way to deal with this issue is simply by deleting the word “GLOBAL” (in Global Ecovillage Networks).
This would be easy to do in our taxonomy.

Again, keep on trying and posting,
All the best

(Silke ) #25

Hi @toka, why would we need this? I am not sure I understand the idea behind.

(Thomas Kalka) #26

Collecting Networks is part of our Mapping Collection work.

We can think of each Network as a separate layer.
Ecovillages on one of our ecovillages maps will be ecovillages tagged in one of our places or ecovillages, which are published by a network to be part of it.

(Michael Maier) #27

That’s why I added (long before this discussion) the item “Individual Ecovillage” to the watchlist on our taxonomy page. The entries are already incorporated in the iD editor and in JOSM.

If there are more Ecovillage networks, we may better have subcategories to a top “Ecovillage” entry, than having several different items with “Ecovillage” in their name cluttering up the list. But that’s for Taxonomy 2.0 ^^

(Thomas Kalka) #28

I would really like to talk about the “political self identity” fields.
But I need some time to write a proposal.

Tax 2.0: reworking political identities
(Simona) #29

People also proposed in the greek group.
I think it would be more functional to have thematic taxonomy groups…
People ecovillage is part of a bigger category that is the one of human sustainable settlements that can include cohousings (also at urban level) and land trust communities, moreover an ecovillage can be also an organization or a trust over than including thematic subcategories as spiritual community, eco technologies based community, self sufficiency laboratory ect…

I mean it is not only a political issue it is a structural one…same we can tell for commons, for solidarity economy and for ngos over than for transition towns, ethical finance, social business…they all have proper network structures and different structures of reference.

I mean maybe i am a bit out of context but is you want to map it all than taxonomy will need to be sectorial and it will need experts and exponents from all the “initiatives and movement” you want to map…

But this is just my point of view


Feedback & Suggestions collected
(Silke ) #30

@simona - that’s precisely what we did - we developed a taxonomy with experts from the different fields, the “GEN” network thing is kind of weird in this context I confess. Anyway, I suggest you analyze the taxonomy
and in case you’ve doubts we should clarify them via a phone call…
because it seems to me that your comments are based on different assumptions than the project is built upon.

(Simona) #31

Dear silke,

This is fantastic!
I never saw this page before.
I didnt check it out, my fault, sorry.

Ok i agree i would delete global ecovillage network and i will put in the taxonomy just ecovillage or even human sustainable settelments and than we can insert another field in the form where users can specify if they are part of a network and which one.

What do you think?

Thanks @Silke


(Silke ) #32

@Scimonoce I am so happy you like it and it seems that you got the idea behind inmediately;

IMHO the OSM-editors for TransforMap are those who mirror the taxonomy for alternatives best; So, if you want to focus your feedback on the taxonomy, these would be probably the tools to use. (nr. 2 and nr 2.1), see also discussion on:

(Jon Richter) #33

@Scimonoce @Silke @species I have just deleted the Taxonomy Suggestions category, as it didn’t get any traction. You could still discuss your additions in a new thread within the following categories, for example:

Vocabularies and Data remains then as the umbrella for even higher abstracted views.

(Giuliana G.) #34

@Toka: Hier some information on Libera Terra and what they are doing:

(Simona) #35

Already answered in another part of the blog. In Italy there is already a map it is called l’italia Che cambia. Collaborating would be wonderful!

What to do?

Thanks and merry Christmases!