What type of relation should I map?

I have mapped a network of bridleways in my area. This is a waymarked network in a limited area very much like the junction network for cycling which works with numbers that you can follow. http://cycling.lonvia.de/en/?zoom=13&lat=52.11608&lon=5.39295

Unlike the cycling networks the bridleway networks do not cover the whole of the Netherlands but are restricted to certain areas that are usually in forests.
The network I mapped is this one http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1866014

Mapnik does not render the network numbers so I made my own map with Maperitive. http://home.xmsnet.nl/peewee/images/Treekhenschoten2.jpg

I’ve mapped this relation as “type=route” but this is not a route that goes from A to B so in that sense I have not mapped it right. The alternative I can think of is to create many relation for every combination of ways that connect between 2 numbers. This is how it is done for the junction network for cyclists. For a limited area like this its seems overdone because then I will have to create a relations sometimes containing just 1 or 2 ways.

What’s the best way to map this network?

I remapped the network for you as a network of routes. The walking networks also don’t cover the whole of the country and there are also route relations with only a single way in them. This is not a problem.

It’s best to map these networks in a consistent way, so the same as the cycle and walking node networks in The Netherlands, Belgium and small parts of Germany.

What I had to do to accomplish this was to split all your ways on the numbered nodes. This makes sense, if you think about it. Then use the copy relation function of JOSM to add the correct members and adapt the note tag, indicating which 2 numbered nodes are connected by that particular route.

I also added all the numbered nodes with a rhn_ref to the network. Ordered them and put the route relations next to the lower numbered node they start from.

The ways in the routes are ordered to go from the lower rhn_ref to the higher rhn_ref.

I notice that in some cycle and walking node networks in The Netherlands the nodes themselves were also added to the routes. This is not necessary. In Flanders (Belgium) none of the route relations contain the end nodes.