Hello RB/Pan,

To be honest, debating with you Is a bit frustrating because you seem to obviously ignore the strong points made by Sarah & Marc, and furthermore you don’t answer the precise questions that were directed to you.

As I see it, Sarah and Marc have demonstrated that your over-use of nodes is simply wrong from a conceptual point of view. Thus, we are not anymore in the realm of “tastes and colors”, as you seem to understand it. Frankly, I hope you will acknowledge that because, if not, this thread will not come to a constructive conclusion.

My “Swiss Compromise”-Proposal to get there would be:

1) The community acknowledges your effort in detailing landuse=forest mapping on a quite impressive area.

2) On your side, you acknowledge that you created landuse cover objects with an excessive number of nodes and you adapt your future mapping activity in accordance.

3) The  community does not start a massive effort to simplify the objects you created, because there are lots of other things where mapping energy can be directed at, bringing much more added value to the map. 

4) On the appropriate pages in the Wiki, we insert the points made by Sarah and Marc and lay down that it is not appropriate to map forest limits with more than one node every 10 m (or so). This in order to prevent that mappers in a “gamification-mood” come to the idea to artificially create an excessive number of nodes with the main purpose of improving their ranking in the contributor’s statistics (@Pan: Maybe you did notice that you are currently ranked #1 in Switzerland’s OSMstats?).

What do you think about these proposals?