Update docs

[nilsnolde]

fixes #3797

Let me know if you find anything is too aggressive here. IMO it looks quite a bit less intimidating to newcomers but still preserves all info that was there previously.

[michaelkirk]

Nice updates! I noticed a couple tiny things.

[nilsnolde]

Thanks @michaelkirk for spotting the typos!

@kevinkreiser this is ready from my side.

[ImreSamu]

✔️

Thank you for updating. 😄

Suggestions for the README:

• Please add a link to the OpenStreetMap project.
• "License" please mention the OpenStreetMap Data license, https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright + Attribution
• (maybe) please mention supporting the OSMF:
  • ~ "If you are a corporate user, you should consider supporting the OpenStreetMap Foundation." https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Join_as_a_corporate_member

Adding FUNDING.yml (A Github Sponsorship button ) might also be an idea to consider. ( collecting microdonations for the Valhalla project )

EDIT:
for a Data license ; we can link the https://github.com/valhalla/valhalla/blob/master/docs/mjolnir/data_sources.md

[nilsnolde]

IMO the LICENSE.md is only applicable for the code of this repo (if that’s what you mean).

GitHub sponsors we discussed (and sorta dismissed) before.

Regarding mentioning OSMF, I’d be fine with that, don’t have a strong opinion there. What do the others think?

[ImreSamu]

IMO the LICENSE.md is only applicable for the code of this repo (if that’s what you mean).

In my opinion, the README should also refer to the licensing requirements of the default OpenStreetMap data of the running Valhalla system. ( And linking the data_sources.md )

This may be important information for a new user, especially if they are not familiar with the licensing of OpenStreetMap data.
And it is my experience that very few people are aware of the licensing of OpenStreetMap data, so a warning in the README is a good idea.

If we want a “list of ingredients” of the running Valhalla system, the mentioning the full data_sources.md and licensing is also important!

disclaimer: I am an OSM mapper and member of the OSMF and I don't want to see valhalla-related problems in this list https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution 😄

[ImreSamu]

II.

IMO the LICENSE.md is only applicable for the code of this repo (if that’s what you mean).

ouch ...

IMHO: the osm test data in this repo ( ls ./test/data/*.osm.pbf ) is probably also ODBL license.
( ~ derived from real osm data ?? )
(see https://github.com/valhalla/valhalla/tree/master/test/data )

So we need to mention in the LICENSE.md + adding a proper attribution

[kevinkreiser]

@ImreSamu its an interesting point but seems rather esoteric when scoped to some tiny extracts used only for unit testing. it would be great to just delete it all and call it covered by gurka (or add a few tests) but it is less work to just add proper attribution so we'll probalby have to do that in the short term. good catch but also, not a big deal imho

[ImreSamu]

@kevinkreiser :

good catch but also, not a big deal imho

I don't think it's a serious problem either. And my comment is more of a surprise, as I'm usually sensitive to OSM license stuff and I hadn't noticed this. 🥲

In case the osm.pbf test data is moved to another test repo ( or new test data will be added )
it is worth removing the OSM metadata ( especially the OSM contributor uid= and user= metadata ) and then the EU GDPR regulations are also satisfied. ( --> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GDPR )

Sorry .. I don't want to block this PR, and perhaps my concerns about the OSM license should be addressed in another PR.

[nilsnolde]

updated with info on data licenses in 6699e9e

[ImreSamu]

@nilsnolde

updated with info on data licenses

✔️ Thank you! All my comments have been addressed. 💯

[kevinkreiser]

👍

[kevinkreiser]

i like this. its been missing for a long time. i cant help but thing there is more we should put here but at the moment i just cant put my finger on what is missing.. anyway thanks for starting the list!