<div>Hi All,</div> <div>the India chapter is actively persuing a GIS project for the City of Rajahmundry.</div> <div>We would like to have interaction with others who have taken up such projects</div> <div>for small cities. We have the following plans.</div> <div> </div> <div>1. Satellite data for </div> <div> a. Land use and Land management</div> <div> b. Urban parcel mapping</div> <div> c. Urban drainage and mitigation of pollution</div> <div>2. Generation of Vector data</div> <div> a. Vector data for all the satellite themes and attribution</div> <div> b. Queries for effective urban planning in </div> <div> Planning trafic policing </div>
<div> Fire stations (presention)</div> <div> Slum identification and poverty alleviation</div> <div>Any suggestions to help a small developing world city through Open Source GIS..</div> <div>Cheers</div> <div>Ravi Kumar</div> <div> </div> <div><BR><BR><B><I>Tamas Szekeres <szekerest@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">2007/9/30, Paul Spencer <PSPENCER@DMSOLUTIONS.CA>:<BR>> What do
others think about this? Should OSGeo be in the business of<BR>> helping new OSGeo projects get off the ground?<BR><BR>Absolutely. That could allow the identities to focus on establishing<BR>the core funcionality much easier without having to bother with<BR>creating the infrastructure behind that.<BR><BR>Furthermore I have the following additions/considerations according to<BR>the responsibilities of the OSGeo from this aspect:<BR><BR>1. OSGeo might establish the possibility to accept new project plans<BR>in a well formaized manner.<BR>2. OSGeo should form a committe (or extend the roles of the incubation<BR>committe or the role of the charter members) to decide whether a<BR>project plan will possibly have a fair amount of interest regarding to<BR>the functionality and technology it has. I personally would prefer if<BR>a wider range of the community would be involved.<BR>3. OSGeo should provide the necessary infrastucture for the project<BR>initiatives so that they
could proceed in approaching a stable<BR>project state (an estimated plan with the milestones should also be<BR>gathered)<BR>4. OGGeo would use some measures around whether the project is making<BR>a good progress and the community around that is somewhat increasing.<BR>5. The neglected projects are to be declared as obsolete by the OSGeo<BR>(by using a voting process).<BR>6. The project initiatives having a stable release could apply for<BR>starting the incubation process for getting the OSGeo "officially<BR>supported" state.<BR><BR>More comments:<BR><BR>- OSGeo should continue to "officially support" only the incubated<BR>projects having a fairly considerable community around each and<BR>possibly continue to be supported in the future as well.<BR>- As the number of the projects is increasing OSGeo should start<BR>providing a better categorization between the projects and their<BR>functionalities/technologies for guiding the new users to make the<BR>selection easier an
find the differences between them in connection<BR>with the desired specifications they have.<BR>- Project duplicates should be avoided, new incremental<BR>functionalities should be stirred towards the existing projects as<BR>much as possible.<BR><BR><BR>Best regards,<BR><BR>Tamas<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Discuss mailing list<BR>Discuss@lists.osgeo.org<BR>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Shape Yahoo! in your own image.
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48517/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7">Join our Network Research Panel today!</a>