Hi,
Welcome to OSM! Thanks for trying to fix these lanes up. How to tag lanes correctly can be pretty tricky for newcomers. A couple of notes for you:
-The "forward" and "backward" values are always defined relative to the road's "direction". This direction is arbitrary, but in this particular case Slauson is defined as forward going eastward. It looks like your tagging switches back and forth.
-You always want to define a total lanes=* value, where the value is the sum of the lanes:forward and lanes:backward values
-While technically correct, you don't really need to define turn:lanes if the lanes are all going forward and there are no turn markings.
Hope that helps! If you need more information, the wiki has some helpful examples of lanes tagging: lanes=*.

Out of curiosity, what system are you working on where the bug was reported?

Best,
Will

Hello, please note that Windsor Square is already mapped as a node: node/7304762329, which is more typical for neighborhoods in the area. Also, by deleting landuse=residential from the polygon, you have removed information about the landuse from the map. In my opinion this should be reverted. What is your source for these edits?
Best,
Will

Hi, Santa Monica Place is the name of this mall complex. I don't think it's really the name of the pedestrian walkway through the mall. What is your source for this change?
Best,
Will

This fell off my radar, but it looks like you went ahead and put Metro back in the names yourself. Thanks for doing that!

Will

I attempted a distinction between grass allowed to grow without any apparent maintenance (natural=grassland), grass that appeared to be regularly cut but not for recreational use (landuse=meadow), and lawns intended for recreation (landuse=grass). But it's possible there's a better way of tagging this. It's also possible that some areas switch between these categories over time (recent survey seemed to match Bing imagery). But hey, they all render the same in Carto anyways ;)

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