Please see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=60286 with regard to how to use name tags (only name, no abbreviations, not for renderer), and also to consider whether this is really an un-named path which should be a member of an alternative route.

Also, I cannot see how you knew the correct route based on your sources, as any trace the sea floor is presumably destroyed by the water. Please do not use guidebooks, maps on signs, etc., as these are copyright and can only be used if there is a licence acceptable to OSM.

Change building=yes to building=bunker

Suggest:

Delete name
Expand abbreviation in U/WaKofest, and place as part of description, or with appropriate tag
Add bunker_type
Add lifecycle prefix and/or ruins or historic
Add tourist_attraction
Add access, if public can enter.
Add fee, if there is a fee to enter.

Your naming of 39 Mount Sinai Rise is being challenged on the OSM Questions and Answers Forum; https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=59863

What is the source for the footpath from the Conway Gardens footbridge to Proyer's path? It is completely invisible on the ground, except for a PROW sign at the Conway Gardens side of the bridge, which doesn't show the route. As such it seems to fail the "on the ground" test to me.

Whilst this one is actually marked as grass, which might be a hint to a router to ignore it, although Grasshopper doesn't, I've just reported a similar problem to Google Maps, and I would have hoped for better from OSM. (Google even route cars trying to get to the social housing on Nightingale Avenue, to the Conway Gardens area, presumably because they think it is a nearer public road.)

I suspect there is a need for a public right of way that isn't actually a path.

Incidentally, the park gets very boggy along this route, in the Winter, and, in dry weather, the best route to the station, from Conway Gardens, is a straight line from the railway bridge.

If you know the extent of the Kadwa Centre grounds, it would be helpful if you added them to the map. In fact, the name should be attached to the grounds, rather than the building.

The whole site will be an amenity=*, but I'm not sure exactly what sort of amenity to use for these. amenity=community_centre would be a starting point, although I suspect this is more like halls for hire, for which I'm not sure of the tag.

Also, all the service roads within the grounds should be tagged with access=private, or access=customers, as appropriate.

Also note that parking aisles are part of car parks, so it is not normal to show distinct car parks on each side of an aisle. Please only do this if they have different attributes, e.g. customer versus staff, or different owners.

I'm pretty sure none of the car parks around Kenmore Avenue are available for general public use, but, by not specifying an access tag, that is what you are telling routing software.

Please consider adding access tags.

I notice that most of the Hoedinger Tobel is already mapped as access=no. It is only the westernmost bit that isn't. There is also a change from track to path, where the access changes, which I suspect is not real. As it is on administrative boundary, I think different sources have been used for the two parts.

Is this a restriction on entry at this particular point, or is it a restriction on the whole length? In the latter case, you should add an access=no tag to the main feature.

In the former case, you should add the appropriate barrier=* tag to the point on the way that people are not allowed to pass, and tag that with access=no. If there is a physical barrier, this is worth mapping, in this way, even if the there is no access to the whole length.

Without knowing exactly what the situation is, it is difficult to be more precise than that.

What you should never do is to use the name=* tag to describe something. It should only ever contain the official name. In many cases that may mean there is no name at all.

You can add note:access=* to the feature explaining more about the notice, and you should also mention the notice in the changeset comments, or in the source tag on the changeset itself.

Although I've not used maps.me, I have seen a lot of cases where it has produced bad mapping. I think it may work for people who are experienced mappers, but it does seem to have resulted in a lot of need for repair, and a lot of map notes that are not useful.

"(closed)" would be meta data and should not form any part of the name.

(I too think maps.me is harming the map. Normally maps.me users don't respond to changeset comments, but this user has also posted to a forum. I think I will add a map note as well.)

The name:en doesn't make sense. I'm also concerned that gesperrt isn't really part of the name, but is actually meta data. The fact that it isn't capitalised adds weight to that concern.

There is also no need for name:de if it is the same as name.

If you add name:en, it should be because that name actually appears on a sign at the site (or the place is very famous and the English name is widely known), and is different from name. Please do not mechanically translate the German name if you don't know the English one.

This is not extending a track, it is adding a new track that just shares a node with another one.

Please try not to create new objects unless they have different attributes.

It is being suggested, on https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=650461 and https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=649766 that part of this route is impassible to buses.

Also, the discussion there suggests that the original source listed hasn't been approved for use on OSM.

Are the bunkers in current use? If so, it seems unusual that they are not on land with a landuse of military. If not, they should have a lifecycle modifier osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

name should never be used for anything other than the actual name of the object. In particular it should not be used as a description to try and get that rendered. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only and osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

You have mapped several car parks without access restrictions, which means that routing software, etc., will treat them as being available for use by anyone.

However the locations and sizes suggest that these are actually for customer user only, and, in the case of the smaller one for the clinic may only be for staff.

You have mapped a cycle path that doesn't physically exist, along the Hempstead Road in Watford. See osm.org/note/998641

I think you intended to indicate that cycling is allowed on the sidewalk, but see the above note for how to do that.

As you've actually mapped it, is is shown as being on private land, the wrong side of buildings from the road.

You have set the source for osm.org/relation/416471 to http://af3v.org/CarteAF3V/-Carte-des-grands-itineraires-.html , but when I look at that page, it says that the map is copyright and reproduction is forbidden.

Any source used for OSM must either be in the public domain, which cannot be the case here, or must be released, under a licence that has been approved by OSM.

Could you either point me to the grant of an approved licence for the use of data from that web site, or remove any data that you added to the map based on that web site.

You have further compounded the error here, not fixed it!

This POI is a cycle rental station, not the Federation Square Attraction. The correct fix was to remove the attraction tags, and all the other tags that went with that, e.g. the URL and the wheelchair access.

See also osm.org/note/982683

If you want the wheelchair access recorded, you need to find someone in Melbourne who can map the proper extent of the attraction and add it as a new, preferably area, feature.

Basically this started off as the rental station. Some wheelmap users seems to have just seen the name and has added wheelchair tags. Another user has compounded that error by adding tags that relate to the attraction, not the rental station, and finally you have even further compounded it by deleting the rental station without even re-mapping it (although that would be a delete and re-add, which would be wrong in itself - it the attraction that is the thing that should be added).