[talk-au] Should a "trail" route relation be one-way?

[Warin]

On 6/9/22 11:23, stevea wrote:
> I forgot to say earlier, so I add here and now:  on really huge routes like this — thousands of kilometers long — it makes it more manageable for humans (and OSM software like JOSM and other tools / end-use cases like renderers and routers) to break up the route into logical sub-components.
>
> I'm thinking of examples I know in the USA, like Pacific Crest Trail or Appalachian Trail, where there are either "by state boundaries" kinds of "chunking," or designated by Trail Management (I think the PCT uses letters of the alphabet to denote segments).
>
> For Munda Biddi, you may want to inquire whether something like this "chunking" of the whole trail into smaller segments is already going on "officially," and mimic that in OSM.  I will say that dealing with a single relation that contains thousands of elements (over 1500 things slow down and get unwieldy) are hard to deal with and do recall that there is a 2000-item limit for some data structures in OSM.  I don't recommend putting more than 2000 ways into any single relation under any circumstances.
>
> I hope all this helps.
>

The Bicentennial Nation Trail is broken by states (and that is a horse 
trail, a mtb trail and a hiking trail). It is not well mapped.

The Overland Track is broken into segments - the 'normal' day lengths 
for hikers.


The Munda Biddi could also be broken into segments -


For example

First relation: Perth to some point where the trail separates into a 
choice. This would be common for all variations.


Second and third relations: from the above relation until they join


Forth relation: common bit from the above to the next separation.


Then I'd have 2 or 4 master relations:


North, South  etc.


This makes changes to it easier as you have to change one section and 
that is then incorporated into each mater relation.