Agree with impiaaa here on both points. Please use descriptive changesets. I also think that boundary=administrative +admin_level=6 appears inappropriate for these data, as it is reserved for counties in CA.

Hi. This looks like a normal gate from streetside imagery, why did you change it to a wall? Walls are not usually mapped as points, nor are they typically found in the middle of service roads...

Hi. What's the source for this edit? The previous editor had mapped it such that access was conditionally yes between 6am and 6pm, and no at other times. You've now made it yes all the time, making the conditional redundant. Please remove the conditional if you know anyone can go through the gate at all times, or revert it if there's only access at certain times, as was previously mapped.

Another suggestion from a user of the OSMUS Slack channel is using unsigned_name=*, which is undocumented but has a few hundred uses: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/unsigned_name, or unsigned_ref=*, which is well used but mostly for highway routes that are on the books but not signposted: osm.wiki/Key%3Aunsigned_ref

I took a look at the ZIMAS system. The code you added here appears to not be the reference code of the actual road per se, but of the parcel of land it sits on. Compare the code number's similarity to adjacent parcel ID numbers. The description of the PIN also explicitly states it's for internal city use only. So I still don't really think it's a good fit for the toplevel name=* tag, though I appreciate that you have a unique use case. As for official_name=*, a value there will still come up if someone searches the number in the search bar.

Yes, but if the name is unsigned and unwieldy like this, normal people probably don't use it. See name=*, where it says not to use name=* if the value is an obscure reference code. As a concrete example, I don't think someone navigating using OSM would want an instruction to "turn left at Frontage Road #139-5A221-258", even if that is the city's internal reference code of this road. For all practical purposes, I think this link is nameless. Also, what is your source for this data?

Hi, I'm not sure this reference code is a a good fit for the name=* tag, as I don't think anyone really calls the road that or is using the code for navigation. I think it would be better if this way were left unnamed, perhaps with the city reference code you've added kept as an official_name=* or even ref=*.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. The address entered here does not appear to match the location of the node, is this the correct location/address?

Hi Anna,
It looks like you got some buildings tangled up here. In general, buildings should not overlap, with each other or with roads. I've tried to sort it out in this changeset: changeset/125539535. Let me know the info looks OK now, or if there was something else you were trying to do.

Hi, is Centinela actually physically separated in this segment? That is, the directions are separated by a median or raised curb, not just paint on the ground or a center turn lane. This physical separation is necessary to map road directions separately: osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway. It doesn't appear to be separated in any street-level or aerial imagery, but maybe the imagery is out of date. If there's only a center turn lane, you can map the road as a single way for both directions with lanes:both_ways=1 + turn:lanes:both_ways=left

Hello, this left turn is allowed. See the previous discussion I had with one of your colleagues in changeset/122894422

OK, in this changeset I added the bollards and disconnected the parking aisle from Fairfax, let me know if you think that fixes the issue! changeset/124414311

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Can you describe to me in a little more detail what change you're trying to indicate here? Does something block the access to the parking lot from Fairfax? For future reference, if you see something wrong that you aren't able to fix, you can add a fixme="description of problem" tag.
Best,
Will

Hi! You appear to have drawn this parking lot on top of some existing elementary school buildings, is actually where the lot is? It would imply that the elementary school has been demolished.

Hi, I'm not sure if you're familiar with this area, but I don't think landuse=commercial is a good fit for this area, which is mostly covered by a hospital, a cemetery, and government buildings, none of which are related to commerce. What was your rationale for making this change?

Cleanup completed in changeset/124167667

OK, maybe they didn't load correctly, or possibly you had a layer switched off. Could you see any existing features while you were drawing? It looks like in your subsequent edits you attached paths to existing features, so perhaps you figured it out.
I'll try to delete the duplicates (like the extra Hilgard and Le Conte Avenues and the second botanical garden) later on tonight.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like in this changeset you re-drew a number of features on top of previously existing features in the database, like roads, buildings, and the botanical garden. Places like Parking Structure 2, Hilgard Ave, etc. are already mapped. Did you mean to duplicate these features, or just to modify them? Maybe they were somehow not visible to you in the editor?
Best,
Will

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Are you using some sort of third-party tool to add your business information, or are you doing it yourself? I ask because you've added your shop's info in a non-standard way: for instance, in OSM we don't say a point is in a "Category=Jewelry Store", but instead use key-value pairs that express the type and sub-type the point belongs to. In this case, shop=jewelry. If you did it yourself directly from openstreetmap.org, no worries, I'll fix it up myself. But if you are using a separate tool, that would be good to know so it can potentially be fixed. Thanks!
Will

Hi Eddie,
It looks like you were correctly trying to delete these demolished buildings. As MxxCon pointed out, there are some other tags associated with the old buildings that can be safely removed, like their heights and names. In cases where the building has been knocked down, it's actually usually better just to delete the old buildings entirely and draw new versions of whatever has replaced them, like the parking lot here, since the lot doesn't really have the same geometry as the old building footprints anyway.
Best,
Will