I understand your point, but I have just responded to several comments that were, in effect, arguing against splitting trails into meaningful sections, even when that approach aligns with how most hiking guides are structured. So while there may be no opposition in principle, in practice there does seem to be resistance when it comes to applying this model to certain trails.
Of course, mappers may validly disagree with each other. I am simply speaking as a stakeholder for hikers and for those who contribute to hiking guides. From that perspective, splitting trails into sections that are meaningful to hikers adds real value.
Regarding the example you gave, both of the common approaches align with how hiking guides present the Wicklow Way, so either one would work well from my point of view.