[Learnosm-coord] Changing structure - Staging site

[althio]

Nick's comments in other threads are also well suited here.
So I will reply here and request for feedback.

Message #1
https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm/issues/306#issuecomment-71377686
From: Nick Allen

> @pyrog thanks for your work on this. I'm no expert, but reading through what you are proposing, it looks as if we would have a far easier to understand 'filing system' for the files needed to display the site if we adopted it.
>
> I know that I found it a bit of a headache working out what to use as the header on .md files - I can't say as I understand it now, I just know how to make it work, but the logic of it seems to defeat me - comments about a blog make more sense when I look at the system we currently have.
> ...
> I'd be interested to see what the proposal would be for a transition - How easy would it be to change from one filing system to another, and would the site be available throughout? The site is constantly being updated, so a transfer would get a little complicated. I'm guessing we could branch, change the structure in the branch, alter the file which shows the web address, and if there is a problem quickly change back until it is sorted - the proposed site can be viewed on jekyll when being 'built' - need the advice of someone with more knowledge though.
> ...
> Whatever system we end up with needs better documentation of 'howto' for those who are willing to write articles about mapping, HOT, etc., than we currently have. For the future, and those who follow on from us, it would be good to have a more logical system so mappers who wish to help others can easily write articles & submit them for inclusion.
> ...
> I am concerned that the amount of effort involved could outweigh the benefits - I need someone with more knowledge on the subject to offer advice so we could then discuss & decide what to do.


Message #2
From: Nick Allen <nick.allen.54 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [learnosm] Localization of images' content (#94)

> ...
> I'm waiting for more input before commenting too much, but the way GitHub is organised I believe that someone could make major changes to a fork, such as a complete reorganisation of how the filing is done, and then offer it for assessment. You can download the fork, run it onsite using Jekyll and assess it - I expect       there are software tools that can carry out other checks, but I'm not familiar with them. If everyone is happy with the fork, then it is merged & we have the same site, but with better organisation - I think............

> Personally I welcome any input which may improve the organisation - producing pdf's that can be printed for mapathons strikes me as a good idea & I think that the proposed reorganisation would help this. There may be other benefits, but I don't know.
> ...



Big thanks Nick for your detailed insights.

We will go this route, trying to build essentially "the same site, but
with better organisation". Still this is a lot of work to make it
properly. It also really depends on what people expect for features
and completeness before they can assess it.

We have received some comments recently on opened issues or on the
lists, mostly from Blake, Nick and Jessica. I think that Kate and
maybe also Jeff gave it a look.

Our view is that the blog/_posts structure is quite a burden and not
the standard way to run Jekyll for documentation.
My main question is:
Does anyone expect any major/minor loss of functionality if we switch
from blog structure to regular structure?

We can also wish for a full specifications/requirements sheet if you
have one ready. ;)
Not really a joke, maybe something was written down before redesigning
the website?

Any pointers, specifications, comments very welcome.