I will talk about it with the rest of the team, although I don't think it is worth the effort to revive the map, since we never got past the testing phase, and we kept struggling with bugs in the software.
What we could salvage is the people behind it and the bits of experience we accumulated. When the time comes I could ask these people to contribute to transformap, if there is agreement on this.
Actually we spent zillions of hours discussing the categories and subcategories, what should and should not be included, and what sort of information should be collected to help the end user interact with the project.
Of course a mapping project is defined as much by what it does map as by what it doesn't map. You don't want to have your map devolve into a catalog of capitalist businesses disguised as coops, corporate-sponsored organizations, charities using the language of social movements, greenwashing environmental organizations, NGOs pushing forward neoliberal reforms, etc. One should draw a line, and be able to enforce it. I think that is the single most difficult issue in such a project. Has there been such a discussion in transformap? Could you point me towards it?
Another issue that was tough was to map the non-localizable projects in a visually attractive way. E.g an alternative currency scheme might be 100% virtual and not have an office or a meeting space, how do you map it? I know that at this stage of testing of transformap we cannot map this kind of projects, but are there any thoughts about the future?