This has hundreds of commits and file changes. I'm not sure how this is reviewable.

A PR should do one thing. I recommend doing one PR for changing to Jekyll, if that's what we want to do, another PR to add translation support, and then any translations can be added in the mechanism we decide for them.

To be honest, I'm a little confused by this answer. The offer to switch to MkDocs with a working example has been around for half a year. Since its introduction, it has only been mentioned that a pull request is needed, but it is not clear who should do it.

On my part, this PR was an attempt to move the issue from its current state of limbo.

It is worth noting the help from @Firefishy in creating github actions for building a container with a working site (Andygol/switch2osm-mkdocs#37). So, by and large, it is enough just to replace one container with another one used for the main site, for the changes to take effect.

I also don't think this PR is a perfect solution, but I can suggest the following transition plan:

• The switch2osm repo in its current state (jekyll version) is archived and renamed to preserve historical artifacts.
• Forking (or copying content) from https://github.com/Andygol/switch2osm-mkdocs to https://github.com/switch2osm/switch2osm. This can be either one big commit or multiple commits split into stages, as described in the comment above. (Personally, I'm more inclined towards one global commit).
• Appropriate changes are made to the mkdocs.yml file to reflect the current repo
• Integration with Transifex is being configured to support translations in other languages. At https://app.transifex.com/openstreetmap/ a corresponding project is created for this. If necessary, it can be any other website that offers similar services.

@Andygol The work to move it to mkdocs looks excellent to me. I contact the other contributors of the site to get agreement, if I get agreement I will push this live.

I'm sure that I commented somewhere on this with something like "I'd love to see it available in other languages, but can't really comment on potential issues with mkdocs vs Jekyll" but can't see where I said that.

If mkdocs content is about as easy to edit and test as jekyll content, then I'd have no objections. Preferably for me it wouldn't require Yet Another Package Manager, but mkdocs looks promising.

@Firefishy could you reopen the PR.

Something goes wrong when I pushed updates to the fork 😞

@Andygol "branch has no history in common with switch2osm:master". It will not let me re-open.

Looks like I need to do a new PR