Add Roadmap setup docs

[AdrianaCeric]

Summary

Adding documentation regarding how to contribute to OTP's Roadmap.

Issue

No issue; this PR is a follow-up from discussions in the OTP PO meetings and OTP Open Days
My changes here are a starting point, I am open to suggestions from the community!
Q: Should I add a link to the OTP PO meetings so contributers to the Roadmap can discuss their Issues after adding them?

Testing

Please refer to this documentation to start up the mkdocs locally!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (b0f876e) 66.80% compared to head (4ab6729) 66.80%.
Report is 77 commits behind head on dev-2.x.

❗ Current head 4ab6729 differs from pull request most recent head b466001. Consider uploading reports for the commit b466001 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             dev-2.x    #5468   +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage      66.80%   66.80%           
- Complexity     15557    15559    +2     
==========================================
  Files           1806     1806           
  Lines          69821    69821           
  Branches        7357     7357           
==========================================
+ Hits           46643    46647    +4     
+ Misses         20720    20718    -2     
+ Partials        2458     2456    -2     

see 3 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[leonardehrenfried]

@BredeD can you review this?

[BredeD]

Yes, I will

[AdrianaCeric]

Thank you for the additions! I left some comments regarding wording and structure. Committing and previewing on desktop will be easier in the long run!

Another section we should include may be how to join a PO meeting

[leonardehrenfried]

@BredeD You can merge this whenever you want. Do you have permissions?

[BredeD]

Need guidance, @AdrianaCeric. I'm in a MaaS meeting just now at NAPCORE Mobility Days.

[AdrianaCeric]

@BredeD you can usually merge a PR with a green button on this PR on github.com! Merging is blocked right now because we need two formal approvals.

[leonardehrenfried]

This is ok from my side. You can merge whenever you think it's ready.

[BredeD]

The merge process stopped, someone see what went wrong?
Is it ok to re-run failed jobs?

[leonardehrenfried]

That was because of something unrelated to this PR - I already fixed it.

The page has already been deployed: https://docs.opentripplanner.org/en/dev-2.x/Roadmap/

[BredeD]

Thanks @leonardehrenfried

[BredeD]

When following the link from opentripplanner.org -> Docs, the menu Roacmap is missing.

[leonardehrenfried]

You need to switch to the newest version of the docs

[leonardehrenfried]

When 2.5.0 is released in March '24 it will be part of the default.

[BredeD]

Ok, I see that, hmm, want to get POs to update the website more regularly. Then this is not the best solution. No rush to do something, but is there something to do to make it faster? If yes, we can make a roadmap-issue for it.

[AdrianaCeric]

Thanks for merging!

[BredeD]

@leonardehrenfried Maybe we should point the docs-link from openstreetmap.org to the "under development" page?

[tsherlockcraig]

I made a PR to the opentripplanner.org website that makes the doc button point to the 2.x dev branch instead of the latest version

opentripplanner/opentripplanner.github.io#5

[leonardehrenfried]

That would definitely solve the problem at hand but will probably create other confusion as people (perhaps justifiably) assume that the default documentation destination relates to the latest stable release of the software.

Brede hinted that the POs would like to have more of these pages and update them frequently. If this isn't the case I could, as an exception, just add this one page to the 2.4.0 documentation.

[tsherlockcraig]

As I made the change I was wondering if that might be a concern, but the other two links on the page already also point to the dev-2.x branch. I think this is actually more consistent and in line with our intention to keep the 2.x branch operable.