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?