If you replace a single stop node at an intersection with separate nodes marked direction=forward/backward, then please make sure you copy over the stop=all tag. Your edit at 33.83208, -117.5648 deleted the information that that every stop sign represents an all-way stop.

Why have you removed surface= tags from a number of ways where I had added them based on a personal survey? For example:

way/217879989

Please revert this changeset and be more careful in future.

Do not choose tags based on how the resulting map looks. This is known as “tagging for the renderer” and is a mistake:

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

And remember that the map at openstreetmap.org is just a tech demo, not something that many people actual use. These tags may look completely different in phone map apps like CoMaps or OSMAnd.

With this changeset, you created an amenity=school way that already had amenity=school buildings inside it. This is an error and will automatically create a bug in the Osmose layer, so you are making more work for your fellow mappers.

The correct way to tag a new school area when the schools are already mapped, is the landuse=education tag. I fixed this in changeset/172240275.

According to the OSM Wiki, link ways at at-grade junctions should take the classification of the highest-level road to which they are attached. This is the most common practice internationally. I have therefore reverted your changes back to my earlier correction (trunk_link instead of secondary_link). I have surveyed this intersection personally and found no reason to deviate from the standard tagging.

This tag is expressly marked as deprecated in Vespucci, and I have noticed that mappers are starting to remove instances of it in the well-mapped cities that I follow.

Please stop adding the crossing=unmarked tag. This tag has been deprecated. If you are mapping for a corporate employer, then please communicate this to your manager so that your fellow corporate mappers cease using this tag.

Also, the footway=link tags you added in this changeset are IMO inappropriate: since ways on OSM are commonly traced from center-point to center-point, the footway=crossing can span the entire distance from the footway=sidewalk on one side of the road to the footway=sidewalk on the other.

Why did you delete the stop=all tag from this node?

node/7228281822/history

This is an all-way stop at a complex intersection where, in order to avoid doubled stop signs, each direction of traffic gets its own highway=stop node with a direction= tag. However, it is still an all-way stop intersection, so stop=all is necessary on each node.

Is this a real campsite, or just somewhere you wild camped?

node/9700182465

What is the source for this camp site? Is it a real camp site, or just somewhere you wild camped? If it is a real camp site, please add also the tags for tents and caravans.

Thanks for drawing my attention to MapRoulette. I would consider complaining about lack of a direction= tag here to be a “false positive” in Osmose terms. After all, if this tag were necessary, one wouldn't need to rely on slow MapRoulette edit over time, one could just apply the tag at once to all nodes by doing an Overpass API query. I’ll go ahead and bring this issue up in the appropriate forum.

There is no need to add direction=both tags to highway=stop nodes when they are at an intersection. Data consumers have always known that the location of this tag at an intersection applies to all arriving traffic.

What is the source for the elevation of this peak?

Are you sure that this way is surface=asphalt?

way/109964012

When tagging SoCal from aerial imagery, I specifically used the tag surface=paved when the road surface seemed to differ from nearby asphalt roads, and was therefore possibly surface=concrete.

This relation:

relation/17501427

has a ref tag with a value "Snow Road". This is likely to be incorrect: 1) ref= tags usually bear a numerical value, and 2) default names in Greek should be in the Greek language, not English. If you are responsible for this (forgive me if you are not), please look into this.

What is the source of this way that you added?

way/624245436

This is a trace too low-quality to be usable. During an on-the-ground survey, I saw that it goes right over a cliff at a one point. I am inclined to delete it if it cannot be replaced with a correct trace.

Why did you remove the footway=sidewalk tag from this way?

way/697620202/history

Per OSM wiki, link roads take the classification of the highest-level ways to which they are attached. Your change of link ways at the intersection at 38.9053, 21.7886 was therefore erroneous and I reverted it in changeset/166123890.

When adding barriers, please ensure that they do not extend across roads that have traffic! Break the barrier at the point that it meets that road, use layer=1 tags when appropriate, etc.

You have left a large number of such errors in San Fernando. A good OSM editor like JOSM should warn you about this before uploading.