Ok, I have the GPX route of HA on hand, I tried to fix that stage base d on it, it did differ at places a bit. Anyway, the change is here, and your MTB relation si there too: changeset/159634131

I hope that is what you wanted me to do. 

so given the description, it should route=mtb no? Do you think it makes sense putting one way property on the relation?

From reading that description, this is the only part of HA also possible for bicycles ( I walked or crossed more stages but not all and some were passable on a MTB, I guess, but it would have been rather demanding).

Hello, what is the name of the cycling route? (I f I noticed correctly, no other part of Huella Andina is marked as cycling route, so I would suspect the cycling route is not Huella Andina - no sources nor anything onthe ground on the parts  walked suggested it is a cycling route also ).

There is a signpost for the route at the bottom of the valley accordign to map. So there is something on the ground.

that should have been "please note"

I see, I would have reverted it then but you have done it already. Sorry.

Since there seems to be a representative of the German national park, please not the sign indicating the kern zone coming from inside Czechia is badly placed: it does not face the border, but is sideways, leaving impressin kernzone is only to the west of this road.

Hello,
1) on several paths I applied the "simplify path" tool of josm, I think with either 0.5m or 1m parameter. Is that not good practice? They seemed like GPS imports. Sometimes I adjust them by hand based on strava or based on my own GPS recordings. In nature, when you have a lot of strava marks somewhere with no way asssociated to them and nearby you have a way with no strava marks on it, I usually conclude the way is misplaced (which is usually supported by my own gps recordings), but I correct these things also when I see them nearby to places I walked through. In my understanding, when you originally have a way that originated as a GPS record of a single hiker, it will be imprecise at times.

Which concrete ways do you have in mind?

El Arco <--> Lago Vidal is not from me, that was already there. I was mainly adjusting the sac_scale and trail visibility so that it better fits the wiki standards (but these are sujective, anyway especially around Cochamo the difficulties were by far too hard, indicating using your hands when that is not the case) but I was mostly not changing the names. The only exception that I recall is the Laguna trail in Cochamo - this name was used on a guidepost there.

I know about fords. For some reason iD complains about that but JOSM does not. I tend to add those when it is an actual ford where you need to wade into the water (which depends on season anyway), but when it is a jumping or stepping over thing, I personally think they are a bit superfluous (in ideal world width=1 or something like that would apply to the stream). I do correct JOSM complaining about water and highway not sharing a node.

(where I changed bridge to ford or the opposite, that is because that is what is there in place, or at least was six months ago)

I will check out the plugin and ask you about it if I struggle with it. Might be a nice things, I use only a subset of what JOSM has to offer.

No offense taken, I think it is good you look over the changes.

There is one thing I am worried about this edit myself - JOSM was complaining about the same geometries overlapping each other (mainly wood). I tried to fix that, but I think I changed the way these large landuse polygons are made. They tend to use method A as described here: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Mapping_style,_best_practice
and I was switching them to method B before I realized that was not the best idea.

And also the relation: route=via_ferrata

feel free to edit both. But as there seems to be some form of consensus, it should be in the wiki in my opinion.

Ok, I documented via_ferrata=start

Ok, I put the individual ways into the parent relations and kept the subrelations for the three individual sections.

frankly, I still think this is osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

and xctrails (and also openstreetmap.org) should be fixed to support superrelations. There is a segment that the purple and red section share, so colour cannot be applied correctly to that way. The main change was actually breaking the purple way into its constituents accroding to the schematic map on-site (picture is linked above) plus aligning everything in the area to a more proper spot.

So the starting point is changed back: changeset/154452452#map=19/50.61555/15.30877

does that help (not sure how fast xtrails updates)?

Hm, so if I get it right, when you use "variant", you mean "way" in OSM. "Section" does not map to any concept in OSM - all the ways in a section need to have name (and colour) applied to each of them. I was trying to break down the sections into individual segments according to their difficulty as the in-place map suggests (i only properly did the purple one, note that the map is no all up to date to reality)the : https://imgur.com/a/STGasQY

I think the current way is a bit of mapping for a renderer (xtrails) and the way I used subrelation makes sense as it maps better to real world than the usage you suggest.

I have a suspicion the breakage might be due to me moving what is in description to name, I am correcting that now and let's see what it does on xtrails. If it does not help, I can go back to one relation.

Also, I think all this should be documented in the wiki even if it is still a proposal.

I see. As for starting point, it is not documented via_ferrata=start . Does it work by description value matching the names of the via ferrata relation? I think I changed that to a name, which made more sense to me.

Is it common practice to map all via ferratas in a given spot as one relation when they are more theme-park like instead of mainly serving to securely get from A to B? The wiki says route=via_ferrata is still a proposal and "osm.wiki/Proposal:Via_ferrata#Tagging_as_route=via_ferrata_relation" does not specify this (it says all ways should be added to it, but I think that referes to OSM-way's, not real life ways) . To me in this particular case, there are three via ferratas of different difficulty that can be climbed independently (so red, blue and purple - they also have different names [by colour], and different difficulty). Hence there should be three relations?

I can change it accordingly, I am just not sure what the best practice is.

Ok, so I fixed the three issues (I think just the middle one was caused by me) I mentioned above. I did small edits, you can review them if you want.

I still do not know which paths you think I misclassified as tracks and would still be curious to know.

However, it seems all these long comments were just because of changeset changeset/1442

I guess a simple message in the vein of "respect the way that tag is used here" would have been enough.

I will continue editing all the way to Vilarrica, if I come across something I do not understand, I will ask, but please assume I act in good faith. With hundreds or by now maybe thousands of edits, mistakes are going to split, that is human. That is why these maps are open, so mistakes can be corrected. I encounter plenty of mistakes (like classifying lakes as ponds, for example).

I will be glad if you review the changes - Would you prefer smaller uploads? Or would you prefer any other change in the way I go about it? I am still not sure what you want me to do except of joining that telegram channel, which I did.

Well, I do not understand why to spam 222 people about it.

I think I found the unclassified thing here: changeset/144272582#map=19/-36.67490/-71.28972

Ok. Having walked that route and reading the OSM wiki, I still think a track for all that route would be more appropriate as I would not really see El Roble as community, it is more just a police station, but I will yield to you, I am not going to bleed over it.

I would still be interested in the paths I misclassified as tracks.

I have Telegram and I joined the channel. What now?

Then there is this: way/953326462

It is tagged as service, which I think is wrong, this should be track, no? Service is used just for short ways, usualy on premise, like a private driveway or something like that (my interpretation of highway=service ).

Then there is this: way/462881584

Yeah, I can see that the eastern part of this (from the crossroad about the middle of the way) is not track. I must have by mistake editied the whole way before splitting it. I will fix that.

Like this: way/462881463#map=19/-36.08633/-70.90279 - I think ti is a track. I walked it, if I remember correctly and I see it both on Bing (where it is obscured by trees) and much better on Google earth. Plus at least the part (from the police station nearby) to this building is a track: way/1184893051

Is that one of the reverts?

It is a second time, not third time. First time was around Planchon and as I said, that was a mistake, probably caused by inadvertedly pressing CTRL+SHIT+V or something like that.

When I wrote "track= dirt road", the "road" part is crucial. Indeed, track needs to be passable by cars, I know that. So it is not about surface, it is about the width, mainly. I know this because I do not like to walk on ways that can be used with cars so indeed this distinction is quite crucial for me.

Yes, I did two mistakes, one around Planchon was inadvert, the one with unclassified was my negligence. The other changes to tracks, unless it was something like Planochon again, were honest assessment of satelites.