way/601014603 with area=yes is a broken polygon as it is no closed area. With the building being already tagged as the office I see no reason why to tag the property surrounding it as well as office. Would you mind removing the area tag from the wall and fence?

I fixed the broken polygon way/599383160. It might be worth to reconsider the level of landuse-mapping. You exclude small patches with little trees from landuse=forest. For me it would still belong to the forest, even if in this area currently less trees grow. Also keep in mind that aerial imagery can be dated and there might be currently more trees.

Hello, the natural=wood polygon you edited was broken as it had self-intersecting geometry. I fixed it. Please try to avoid this in the future as it will cause problems with map rendering.

Hello, you deleted the outbound direction of Kamphaeng Phet 6 Road. Why? Are you planning to restore it?

you tagged way/595796608 as a major highway (tertiary) which is certainly wrong here. With it being a very narrow way (you tagged lanes=1, so only 1 car wide), it might be a highway=service. Maybe service=alley as well. Please check with other experienced mappers in your area to get more support in how to use OSM, as it can be quite challenging to tag everything correct. I fixed your mistake already.

all your highways overlap as they form duplicate "rings". Please fix it. Roads are lines, not areas...

you created polygon way/562939256 with broken geometry. I fixed that. Please try to avoid in the future. Besides this your way of tagging the area is at least unusual. Please clarify with local mappers about the mapping style.

Thank you for trying to contribute. Please do not just draw lines and label them roads. At least try to have them follow the road in reality. DigitalGlobe imagery show the road clearly and you painted straight across the building. You might want to get in touch with some experienced mappers for support on getting started.

Please pay attention to not add duplicate ways on top of existing ones. I had to delete way/589745353

Pure coincidence. A neuronal network came to the same conclusion that you came to. For me in person it would have not been clear enough to add unpaved.
Check out the forum and give feedback on that different approach: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=62138

way/583106592:
What was your source of the unpaved tag here?

Regarding way/533509802:
Did you check on the ground? How did you come to the "unpaved" conclusion?

Can you please double-check way/588093805

It ends in the no-where. It has the same tagging as the major highway it connects to. Probably unclassified and continuation along the hamlet at the canal sounds better.

Polygon of Rama IX park was invalid (self-intersect). Please also do no glue to ways. In addition it overlaps the ways to stretch to the other side which is certainly wrong.

I would remove oneway=no on roads where it is obvious. Otherwise we can tag hundreds of default values. Also check your settings on how the oneway=no ended up on that road. It looks like you created it from scratch. All nodes and the way had been in version 1 created by you.

I fixed the missing religion=buddhist on the temples you added here. In the future, please add this.

Hello Tom,
how certain are you regarding the ref 3233 on that small side road? way/586453172 is just 600m long. It does not look like a secondary road. More like a residential or even a service road for the industrial estate there. Please also do not set oneway=no on roads which are obviously not oneway.

please don't duplicate data which is already there. OSM is a volunteer project. You create extra work...
Please also follow the established tagging convention

What is your point? You do bad tagging in a large portion of your tagging. Does the exact number matter? Run the query yourself: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yzi

366 nodes, 62 ways

It is unusual to add source tags to the individual elements, especially for such common things like GPS or survey. In case you plan to continue doing it: Please use the correct spelling of the tag, which is "source". Note the small "s". You did hundreds with a capital S.