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?

osm.org/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?

osm.org/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?

osm.org/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:

osm.org/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?

osm.org/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?

osm.org/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.

What is the source for bikes not being permitted on Islom Karimov ko'cashi pedestrian street in Samarkand? I surveyed Samarkand for several weeks last year and frequently saw bikes on this road.

Let me remind you that last year, you were blocked from editing OSM by the Data Working Group due to these destructive edits. If you continue, I will refer this matter to the DWG again.

The rules for how to trace a road are clearly stated in the OSM Wiki, to which I pointed you last year. Whether a road is traced as one way or two has no effect on "navigation" or "traffic rules".

I reverted this edit in changeset 165765722. You were already told last year that there is no physical separation on this street (as an on-the-ground survey shows), and roads are not to be split into two ways if there is no physical separation.

Why are you adding bicycle=yes to sidewalks in Riverside? Especially when the road alongside them already has a dedicated cycleway that is tagged on OSM?

Why are you removing footway=sidewalk tags from highway=path instances that are actually sidewalks? If you disagree with the use of footway= on a highway=path, you could at least replace it with path=sidewalk in order that your edits are not destructive of on-the-ground information.

According to OSM Wiki's article for maxspeed=, it has been common in a number of countries to add a "XX:rural" value there and not in source:maxspeed. If you feel that this is inappropriate, then I leave it to you to do an Overpass API query of all instances and change them.

If I added a specific number to a maxspeed= tag inside Poland, you can be sure that this was based on personally seeing the speed-limit sign; I did all such mapping on my bicycle.

How so?