E* superroutes are an excellent exercise in nested route management. I won’t (yet) start here a list of all the questions I had to struggle with when trying to sort out all those that go through France (E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, E9, E12) but it seems to me that you are tackling these:
how do we supervise them? Currently they are too large for knooppuntnet.nl
how do we proceed when routes have common segments? Personally I try to share sub-relations between super-relations but sometimes it gives strange patterns in the lists of names
who is the operator? am I right saying it’s the European federation for the parent superrelation, and national operators for national segments?
who makes decisions? someone in Italy or Germany got upset at my attempt to set the osmc:symbol tag of E10 in conformance with all other E* routes because it broke some local rendering in some application
what should be the role of ERA-EWV-FERP in this? one of their members is active on OSM but they don’t seem to have much to propose in terms of reference data (rather the opposite actually: they use OSM)
was @Peter_Elderson right when making two independent relations for E4 East and E4 west (edit: actually it’s E5, sorry)
how do we deal with transfers by boat? are they an example of non-paths as discussed in another thread?
I walked the Bulgarian part of the E4 myself, as well as most of the E3 (Kom-Emine), so please let me know if I can help with that.
I can say that while on the top of Gotsev Peak, I did not see a waymark, signpost or even a path going down on the Greek side of the border, so the ways south of the border (starting with Way 302266591) that are included in the Bulgarian E4 relation are certainly not part of the Bulgarian E4 and probably not of the Greek E4 either. As Greece is in Schengen and Bulgaria is not, crossing the border without passport control would be illegal.
