Interesting question. The problem we face is where to draw the line, to define the scope of OSM. One possible solution is to define that scope as only information that a member of the public (i.e. a potential OSM contributor) is likely to be able to *verify*.

The assumption is that information that falls outside of this scope is not likely to be reliably verifiable/updatable, and therefore does not belong in the OSM database.

If you try to define a narrower scope, I suspect there will always be people who want it broadened.

Better examples here:
osm.org/go/xZHrPUmuB--
osm.org/go/0MBdE4AA
osm.org/go/0MBdEXMHO-

Map it as a highway=* (way) AND a highway=* + area=yes (area)

@zenfunk

"The people of Haiti got that gift already"

But a PD fork would enable Google to import that data and merge it with their own data set. I suspect the result would be even more useful for the Haitians...

@robert: "I don't see how a PD fork would prevent parallel work.... It would just be a one way gift to Google."

And a gift to the people of Haiti.

Ævar: Hope so :)

Nice entry, Ævar. Are there documented methods (e.g. wiki pages) for tagging entities that are represented as an area and a way? E.g. would the road name go on the area or way? Is a relation required to relate the area and the way?

As for cheap loggers, if 128MB is enough, you could try an Amod AGL3080 - http://www.semsons.com/amaggpsdalos.html

Good idea about asking for the cycleways data. I've been in contact with Logan City Council up in Brisbane. Waiting to hear back from their marketing department. Main issue seems to be licensing.

Nice idea. But you would be entering a market that already seems very competitive. So I guess I'm inferring that perhaps "cost price" is still substantial, and therefore you may struggle to really shave a large amount off the price.

What if there isn't a path through the park? To me, it would seem strange for a router *not* to suggest a route through a park if on foot, provided there's no access restrictions...