Update Open Drone ID documentation

[friissoren]

@hamishwillee @tridge @BluemarkInnovations @ThomasDebrunner @sborenstein-ift

A first attempt at updating the MAVLink documentation for drone ID. Please review and comment.

[timtuxworth]

Some suggestions. I think the one about the use of the word "transmitter" is quite important.

[friissoren]

One more thing came to my mind, that should possibly be mentioned in the documentation as well.

In emergency situations there are multiple parts of the UAS that can declare emergency and there needs to be a strategy to ensure other parts of the UAS doesn't overwrite that information. I wrote some initial thoughts about that here. I would very much appreciate input on how you all think this should be solved and I sincerely hope that ArduPilot and PX4 could come up with an aligned strategy for solving this.

[friissoren]

I did some updates, which I hope resolves the above comments/concerns.

I pushed these as a separate commit, to make it easier to review the changes. I trust that Hamish will squash everything when this eventually gets merged, in order to keep the history nice and clean.

[BluemarkInnovations]

I think it is a good description of Open Drone ID for MAVLink users. Personally, I would add one or two sentences in the introduction about Remote ID.

Direct Remote Identification or Remote ID (RID) is an (upcoming) mandatory technology for UAVs in Japan, US and EU. Data such as real time location, serial number. operator ID are broadcast via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. Open Drone ID is an open source implementation of RID.

[timtuxworth]

I wouldn't say "upcoming" - this statement will be obsolete in 10 days.

[timtuxworth]

Overall this looks great, I think it explains everything clearly.

[BluemarkInnovations]

I wouldn't say "upcoming" - this statement will be obsolete in 10 days.

In the EU it is upcoming. (It becomes mandatory in the EU on January 1st 2024.)

[friissoren]

I added an additional commit with some introductory text along the lines of what @BluemarkInnovations suggested.

[hamishwillee]

Just a few comments.

[friissoren]

Just a few comments.

Just a few :-) Thanks for the very thorough review. I pushed some changes to cover most of your comments.

[hamishwillee]

Great. It looks pretty good to me, but can we get/do we need more detailed ArduPilot / PX4 review? @auturgy @ThomasDebrunner

[hamishwillee]

This looks good to me and has been reviewed by people who know the intent. I'm going to merge. @auturgy @ThomasDebrunner @tridge - if you have comments we'd appreciate them. Even though we're removing the WIP tagging on this, I think we all understand that it has to be "somewhat" WIP until the whole compliance things settles.