Dear community of the neighbouring country,
In my home country of Austria, I prefer to map cycling and hiking routes. In Italy, I only map occasionally when I notice major discrepancies between the map and reality while on holiday.
One of my last changes has led to a discussion with a local mapper and I would like to know your opinion.
Please excuse the English language, unfortunately I don’t speak Italian. Just do it like the Swiss community, everyone answers in their favourite language.
Question
Does it make sense to divide large cycle routes (> 1000) into smaller routes?
Long routes are divided into linear stages, packed into relations and summarised again with a superroute. Alternatives, excursions and connections are separated from the main route in another relation.
In my view, there are several arguments in favour of this:
- smaller relations are easier to maintain
- linear relations are easier to check for gaps
- they motivate more mappers to collaborate
- the probability of upload conflicts is lower
- they reduce the load on the database
Of course there are also disadvantages:
- there are more relations
- the interaction of relations requires more attention
- the support of superroutes is still limited
In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
What is your opinion?
Example I1
I1 before restructuring
1 relation, 1204 members, version #689
(zoom)
The elevation profile visualises sorting errors and gaps.
I1 current (Vers. #696)
Relation 1607435: I1 main route. Superroute with the 4 stages as members.
Relation 16478126: I1 Alternatives. Variants and connections, 269 members.