Getting hold of a proper resource for generating patterns is not just a matter of volunteer effort.
The U.S. and British patterns were derived from commercially published dictionaries. The source of the U.S. patterns is identified in Frank Liang's dissertation (a copy of it is on the TUG web site), and the British patterns are based on an Oxford mini-dictionary. In both cases, extensive negotiation, non-disclosure agreements, etc., etc., were involved, which took several years. Negotiations are still underway regarding an updated version of the British patterns; the discussion started more than two years ago, involving the same dictionary publisher and the individual who produced the original patterns.
Since you are producing a magazine, you may have or be able to develop contacts within the world of dictionary publishers in the English-speaking areas you mention.
The primary resource necessary to generate patterns is a reliable database with hyphens embedded. Permission must be obtained, which will require assurance (probably contractual) that the database will not be used for anything else or shared with anyone else. There may be monetary considerations, although I believe access to the sources used for the current U.S. and British patterns were negotiated for free. Ambiguous entries must be weeded out (e.g., "pro-duce" (verb) vs. "prod-uce" (noun)), and other editing applied as described in Liang's dissertation.
This is not an exercise for the faint of heart.
In the end, unless the regional hyphenation is substantially different from the existing U.S. and British usage, such work may not result in any significant differences, and not be worth the effort involved.