[Talk-us] "Mixed" super-relations (both ways and other relations as members)

[stevea]

I realize this is wider than simply talk-us, but I keep it to this national list because I've recently entered something "new" which is "national" and I've never "mixed" relations like this.

The 9/11 Trail (for now, initially, a route=bicycle and network=ncn, but eventually will also become another relation tagged route=foot and network=nhn) travels through six (Eastern) states and DC.  It incorporates a lot of existing bicycle routes, often a whole state's route at a time.  For example, in addition to over 600 ways — there will be a lot more as most of Pennsylvania route segments remain unentered — there are the following relations entered into this "mixed super-relation:"

Pennsylvania's Great Allegheny Passage (route)
Maryland's USBR 50
DC's USBR 1
East Coast Greenway's (ECG's) DC route
ECG's Maryland route
ECG's Delaware route
ECG's NJ North, NJ South routes (two)
ECG's NY Staten Island
Northwest Lancaster County River Trail
BicyclePA Route J1

I find it very convenient to add these "route at a time" members to the super-relation, as it streamlines any changes to a single datum (the relation for that route), rather than having to keep them sync'ed.  (And it isn't always clear when route relations have multiple super-relation memberships).

Yet, for other segments of 9/11 Trail, only segments of other routes are incorporated, or it may even be the case that 9/11 Trail is the ONLY route relation in which some segments are found.  Here, the only thing to do is to add the "naked" ways to the relation.

An eventual solution might be to eventually collect together all the "naked" ways which are members (we're a long distance from that presently) into a relation of its own, THEN add this relation to the 9/11 Trail super-relation, making it no longer a "mixed" relation, but one containing nothing but other relations.  Mmm, maybe.  At least then, it would render in Cycle Map layer (I'm pretty sure, having seen other super-relations-only-containing-other-relations "properly" render here).  I'd rather do this "the preferred OSM method" rather than "a method crafted to encourage Cycle Map to render."  So, this post here.

Do others have experience with such "mixed" relations?  Is the above strategy (both existing entry and the idea to "collect other extraneous ways into a single relation and include that in the super) workable / preferred / a good idea / smart-to-do?

Thanks,
SteveA