Note: boundaries between adjacent scrub polygons were arbitrary

Hi,
In the future, it would be nice if you could use descriptive changeset comments, so that other mappers could see at a glance what you're changing. Maybe something like "Traced house in Brentwood" for example?
Best,
Will

Hello, and welcome to OSM! Note that Griffith Observatory has already been mapped, you can find it here: way/422130705. In light of that, I'm going to delete the duplicate point you added.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Best,
Will

Hi,
It looks like you've been doing some needed standardization on the various aspects of the Metro Rail system, thanks for that. A minor question: on this and other changesets it looks like you removed "Metro" from the route relation names, did you have a specific rationale for that? I've been working on the bus routes in the area, and I typically name them with the operator first (so like "Metro 33 Westbound"), so it might be a bit more consistent for the rail/BRT lines to keep it too. It seems like the wiki is ambiguous, and usage in other US cities can go either way. And of course, the route relation names don't matter that much anyways: honestly, I probably prefer "Metro" just because it means they all sort together alphabetically in JOSM ;). That is to say, it's not a hill I want to die on or anything, but just wondering if there was a good reason either way.

Best,
Will

I went ahead and changed these back to sidewalks in changeset/139230161

Hi, I added this building based on survey, it's definitely a multi-story parking garage. You can see this from streetlevel imagery

Hm, I'm sympathetic to your arguments here, but I'm still not convinced tagging these polygons natural=sand is any better a temporary solution than leaving them as natural=desert, since that sort of encapsulates the uncertainty about the real landcover that you describe. Would you mind if I brought this up on the OSMUS Slack so other folks in the US community can take a look?

Hello!
Thanks for adding additional tagging to the map around here. One question: it looks like in this and some other of your recent edits, you've changed a number of ways from a 'sidewalk' (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk) to a 'bicycle path' (highway=cycleway + foot=designated + bicycle=designated). What was your reasoning for this, and how did you choose which to upgrade? They mostly look like pretty typical sidewalks to me, without any specific bike infrastructure I'd expect on a cycleway.
Best,
Will

I would also say that Valencia is better classified as tertiary than secondary, and would appreciate it if the changeset comments were more descriptive

Hi, welcome to OSM! I've noticed you've changed the highway classifications of a number of roads all around Northern California. If you don't mind me asking, what's your rationale for these changes? In this particular example, I've driven much of CA 1 in this area, and it's not a big thoroughfare connecting major population centers, but rather a one lane road connecting to small, rural towns and recreational areas. So I think primary is a good fit for it.

In addition, which roads to classify as trunk in California were recently hashed out by the mapping community and documented at osm.wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines, and these segments aren't on it. If you think they meet the definition of trunk, it'd be nice if you discussed it on the talk page there.

Best,
Will

Hello,
Why was the building tag removed from this way? It appears to be a building.

Best,
Will

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, your data was not entered in the correct format. In OpenStreetMap we use "tags" in standard ways to denote different objects: osm.wiki/Tags, and things like "Category" are not standard. Can I ask, how did you come to use these tags?
Best,
Will

Hello,
It looks like this feature you've added might already exist: way/243583735. Did you mean to add another one?

Hi, thanks for looking to add to the map. Unfortunately, Google maps is not allowed as a source on OpenStreetMap: osm.wiki/Google. If you'd like to add an image of this park, the best way might be to take one yourself and upload it to Wikimedia Commons: wikimedia_commons=*.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Best,
Will

Hi again, I'm going to go ahead and revert this. Please respond to changeset comments in the future, especially if it's related to an organized editing campaign.
Best,
Will

Hey Joseph,
It looks like in this change you changed a lot of the giant natural=desert polygons around the Mojave to natural=sand. Can you say a little on why you think natural=sand is a good tag for these areas? I think that natural=desert certainly isn't well defined, but natural=sand doesn't seem like it's always right for these areas either to me. A lot of these "deserts" are covered in scrub or other plants. In fact, the Mojave Desert polygon you retagged overlaps with a tagged natural=scrub area: way/934058828), but you can certainly see it if you zoom in to e.g. the Lanfair Valley (way/165774302). I find that retagging these vast, often vegetated landscapes as sand weakens the tag meaning and obscures the actually sandy areas, like Kelso Dunes (way/61011696). IMO, some of these might best be tagged as some kind of place=*, or maybe natural=valley.
Best,
Will

Thanks!

Hi, it looks like you're using outdated imagery, as this area is currently under construction. In fact, you've re-added these highways directly on top of some demolished:highway=service ways: way/773910913. It might be useful to check for these sorts of things before adding new ways.
Best,
Will

Hi, this looks like an error, as this appears to be a building from satellite and streetside imagery

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like you've added names to the ramps in the 405/10 junction. Typically, freeway ramps aren't named for their destinations; instead, you can tag that with "destination:ref=I 10 West", for example. You can read more about it on the wiki: highway=motorway_junction#Destination_of_the_exit.
Happy mapping!
Will