Cycle routes I1, I2: Split up large routes in an organised way?

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.


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

F01_I1_before_tn150 (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.

1 Like