Mappers need to keep in mind that different countries have different addressing conventions (even without the block addresses), and forcing the other countries to the system used elsewhere just won’t work. Some can assign every entrance to one house number, others can have just one house number for an apartment complex consisting of several disjoint buildings (with buildings/staircases/entrances then identified with a “staircase ref”); or one street corner building with a single entrance can have a house number on every neighbouring street, even with a lit number on each respective wall - none of them is more important or correct than the others. For what it’s worth, here we do as described in the entry: address on the building way whenever possible, otherwise (has addresses on several streets) as nodes inside the building way.

Fix for my comment: the logs don't include the lines with the "ele" and "/ele" at all. The proprietary logs don't have it, or the converter doesn't know how to handle it.

I got the same error. Thanks to user ij_ who found that the fault was, that my logs don't include the .. line (converted from Nüvi proprietary binary format). Commenting out lines 109, 110, 243 and 244 in logdraw.pl made it work for me, but that was the dirty way to fix it. Maybe skorasaurus has the same problem?

The Map features page lists only a basic set of tags to get people started.
For "no bicycles", there's bicycle=no:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle

The applications that consume OSM data probably don't yet use any of these:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=stop
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=give_way

When the number of lanes changes, you split the way into two (or more) consecutive ways, and change the lanes tag on the correct part.

Check the records of your incident - did the person calling the police call you a burglar ("libel" ring a bell?), or just "something suspicious"? If the latter, the shame is only on the police. There's a reason people can't call random people, say, murderers without consequences.

Waste baskets, benches
Rest of the house numbers, residential buildings, their entrances, building:levels tags
Fences, hedges, scrubs, cliffs, retaining walls
Smaller aka. minor power lines
Parking restrictions on the streets
Overtaking restrictions
Underground water pipes
Private driveways

Read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy for a kind-of checklist; from what you write the first part seems covered, but do look at the section Technical Usage Requirements and onwards.

Having all highways with a maxspeed tag set will happen before every house has a addr:housenumber - which is a goal that will take some years even in towns with active mappers. Just get on with it, you'll have your local area covered soon enough even if you collect just one speed limit every day. Make the most out of your mundane travels by introducing slight variations.

A week ago I was the last editor of 6300 objets containing house numbers just in my home town. The number I have entered is roughly the same, in this city. And we only have about half of all numbers yet. Add to that a few hundred on trips to other places. Point being: yes, it's a lot of work.

Especially when there's lots of stuff already drawn, I often don't do full mapping surveys (with a camera, hundreds of photos and days worth of editing), but I'd be reluctant to let the daily trips be a total waste of my time, mapping wise:

If you commute by car or on a bike, you can often choose a bit different route every day. Then you can usually survey one or two blocks / bits between two intersections just by memory; "on this section, there were roughly equally spaced houses, odd numbers only, 8 to 22". Repeat the next day. It is more foolproof if you try one side of the road only on any single trip.

If it's a long section or they're not roughly evenly spaced and you're on a bike or on foot, you can stop for few seconds in front of each one. Just limit your eagerness while doing that, so that you don't have hundreds of stops in the gpx, but already forgot which numbers they represent. If you use a bus daily, and the buses leave with a suitable interval, you can do such sections, too; step out at a random stop and walk to the next stop (or the one after that), again stopping in front of each house. Then you might as well have a bit of paper with you and write down the numbers in order. Extends the area covered for little extra time spent.

Do check if it applies in your country: some countries have made "systematic" depth measurements a licensed activity; they consider the data too interesting for hostile army vessels and want to keep some navigable waters a secret - thus the licensed surveyors need to present their data for "cleanup". But if they can't know who you are...

Someone did experiment with generating terrain data from a pile of gpx logs elevation data. I got the impression that only after tens of traces for each road the values start to converge to a reasonable presentation, i.e. without nonexistent hills or cliffs. And only for that road. Sorry, no link at hand.

Introducing highway=road was even discussed only after the import was already done.

There's no reason not to add detail to railways, too.
http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=60.22&lon=24.944&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF
There's also a page of examples of detailed mapping of several feature classes:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sample_areas

The key surface is not even looked at in the rendering rules, AFAIK.

Could be that they've used some preliminary city plans to draw their map and got the wrong name from that. Or it's intentional. I've seen some footways with a name ending in "tie", but they're mostly some really old and narrow roads that have since been barred from motor vehicles.

Again I'd say leave them in. They're of little use in the beginning when all there is are the street shapes and names, but in some years they can be. At least in places with all the buildings and house numbers and with out-of-the-ordinary street shapes, they start to make the highest zoom levels more informative than any simple-to-use tagging scheme could. With them it's easier to enter the pedestrian crossings and their reachability without compromising the accurate connections to some footways in the parks, or such.

If you look at most (state) mapping agency produced map databases, they do have driveways. There's so much more to maps than the "public roads for routing" - yet mapping of which is the first objective. Leave them in, someone will eventually (could be years but anyway) add them again.

Just by looking at the aerials, I don't see a reason why not to draw a footway to connect the barrier=entrance to the road by the church. I'd personally draw all the significant parking areas, too, with an access=private where appropriate.

Just a comparison of the amount of roads... (numbers from wikipedia so I don't know if GB number includes all forest tracks accessible to cars - for Finland it does)
Km of roads, population, land area (km²)

453 000, 05 300 000, 338 419, Finland
398 350, 58 000 000, 209 331, Great Britain

roads/person: 85 meters (FI) vs. 6,9 meters (GB)
roads/sq.km: 1,33 vs. 1,9 km
(actually 1,49 for Finland as 10% of land area is lakes)
roads/local OSM user: 1058 km (FI) vs. ?
sq.km/local OSM user: 790 km² vs. ?
And then just guess how much unmapped roads we have here outside the biggest cities...

The land borders between Finland and Sweden and Finland and Norway run mostly along a river. I was searching for their data from the local officials but found only some information: the borders are checked by both countries authorities every 20 or 10 years to see if the deepest or "main" route of the river has changed considerably. The surveyors jointly produce a list of the control points for each country's higher officials to approve later on. Last time this was done Finland gained a small island but lost some even smaller islets, if I remember correctly.

On the Russian border the same procedure has been carried out sometime but there's no river, only the poles, so it's more straightforward and even considered more seldom.