Hiking superroute versus "route of routes"

Help and support
, , ,
1

For hiking route relations that consist of multiple stages, where each stage has its own route relation, I see two approaches to the parent relation. Sometimes it defined as a normal hiking route relation with type=route, whose members happen to be route relations. In other places is is defined as type=superroute. Some route relations near me have flipped between the two approaches over the years, depending on the preference of individual mappers.

The routes I am interested in consist of stages that are defined by the route operator and clearly identified on the ground. New multi-day trails created near me in the last 10 years or so generally follow this pattern: they consist of a series of clearly identified stages, each of which is a genuine route in its own right, intended as a half day or one day walk. I’m not sure if this distinction matters, but the rather sparse wiki documentation of type=superroute gives the impression that it is for routes that have been split at arbitrary points to make them easier to manage in OSM, which is a bit different from stages that are defined externally to OSM.

E.g currently mapped as superroute:

Currently mapped as route of routes, after being tagged as a superroute for many years:

Is there any advantage to one or the other approach?

Edited to add: now I have discovered yet another approach: “type=superrelation”. I don’t think that is valid at all?

2

For hiking route relations that consist of multiple stages, where each stage has its own route relation, I see two approaches to the parent relation. Sometimes it defined as a normal hiking route relation with type=route, whose members happen to be route relations. In other places is is defined as type=superroute.

I prefer the superroute approach, i.e. for the complete trail a relation that only contains relations. The individual stages should have the metadata of the stage (e.g. “from”, “to”, “via”, duration, distance, difficulty etc., as available of course), and the superroute should have the accumulated data for the whole route it represents. In some cases, there are intermediate superroutes, e.g. the Sentiero Italia consists of hundreds of stages, so it was split into regions in order to reduce the possibility of editing conflicts and make it more transparent.

Not rarely, the name tag is abused to give information about the stage, or “note” and “description” tags are used, my suggestion is to use “stage” for the number of the stage.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stage

another question that sometimes arises is about the network, some mappers argue for lwn for the individual stages, I would rather prefer rwn / nwn / iwn also on the stages, as they are part of a network bigger than local.