Thanks for the thoughtful message.
I understand that these organizations and platforms often define trail sections through their own editorial processes. However, when I look at the most commonly hiked long-distance trails, it appears that OSM mappers have already, in practice, split many of them into sections that align closely with what is useful to hikers. The only major exceptions seem to be the trails discussed in this thread.
At this point, the only trail where there seems to be significant uncertainty about whether this kind of split should be applied is the Appalachian Trail. Even there, the discussion among mappers shows that there is no strong consensus on what the current sections should be. If a trail is going to be split, and multiple approaches are equally valid, why not choose the one that reflects how hikers actually use the trail?
There also seems to be some confusion about the term “canonical sections.” I am not advocating for a fixed, universal standard. I am advocating for splits that are meaningful from a hiker’s perspective. These do not need to match Wikivoyage, and I am happy to adjust Wikivoyage content when needed. Nor do they need to be definitive, but I believe a natural convergence will happen over time, just as we see in published hiking guides.
All I am advocating for is that there is a split, and that it serves a purpose for hikers. This is already the case for the vast majority of long-distance trails in OSM, and we are very close to seeing it completed across the board.
At the end of the day, this is not about remaking OSM to suit one project. It is about recognizing that the approach already used on most trails, splitting them into meaningful segments, has proven to be effective. I am simply advocating for applying that same consistency where it has not yet been done.