It was probably the editor then. I readded the tag for you.

I am not a moderator. I don't believe any moderators have talked to you, just other contributors. This is a very decentralized effort and so you can't guarantee that everyone has infinite patience. If people are being abusive you can use the site's report feature, of course.

No tags are permissible. OpenStreetMap is for what exists on the ground. I couldn't find any evidence that this is considered historic by any actual authority. There is seemingly no on-the-ground presence (others have said you need to be invited in for it to be appropriate), so it should not be marked. We are not Google Maps or any other site. Just because they mark it one way doesn't mean we do. If I found out my home was once used for filming an old TV show I would not let it be marked because I would not let people tour it and wouldn't want them to come visit.

If the residence is no longer in use and has been turned into a tourist attraction, then it would be appropriate. If it is considered historic by the government, that is also acceptable. But if a bunch of people wanted to check out your home even though you didn't want them to and it's only set up for you to live in, it would not be okay to tag. It is not okay for whomever lives here now.

You changed Classic's Burgers to building=yes from building=commercial. Maybe the editor did it for you (and it can be unintuitive), but you need to make sure to check those things. I switched it back, though.

Yes, but you should be tagging your changeset with your sources, rather than waiting for questions. It would be great to link to that. Of course
you cannot copy from other platforms that don't explicitly permit OSM usage. It is copyright infringement.

Also, addr:city is supposed to be used for the postal city, not necessarily the city the address is in. So these should be listed as San Pedro, not Los Angeles.

Please provide a source for El Puerto Restaurant. I can't seem to find any evidence it exists from an online search. I don't see it on street-level imagery either.

This is a private residence, it should not be marked. The website you added is not an official site either, so it has been removed as well.

addr:city should not be in all caps. Please correct this here and on all your other edits.

building=commercial is used for restaurants. It is not retail, and it is certainly not industrial.

Why did you remove building=detached from the house?

Please don't vandalize the map by adding fake names. Your additions have been reverted.

This and many of your other edits have the recurring issue of unexpanding suffixes and other terms in road names. "Route" should always be used, not Rte. Same with Road over Rd. Please fix this across all your edits.

It does not matter. "Need" is never an acceptable defense in court against copyright infringment. Just because an issue is widespread does not make it no longer an issue, so "whatever" is not the appropriate response here.

1. The fairway should have a hole in it for the green. Also, don't use Google Earth/Maps. It is copyrighted.

2. There is nothing wrong with labeling the holes. The problem is the use of the name tag. "Hole 6" is not a name, it is a description. In fact, the relevant info is that it is the sixth hole. It is referred to by the number 6, so 6 is the ref. Having a name tag on top of ref is pointless and incorrect.

The crosswalks' names are definitely an example of "name as description" and should be removed.

Reverted in changeset/123985846

Fixed in changeset/123985770

motor_vehicle=private will not prevent bus routing. It is more accurate to say that all the roads are private for all transport methods. Fixed in changeset/123985657

Fixed in changeset/123985613