Besides, at times, using a larger zoom and too many clicks, I haven't committed mistakes on this topic.
My point is that your argument is a fallacy as all OSM data mapped by any user represents the situation at a precise moment. Everything. We might argue about the continents, but rivers are being moved, buildings demolished, etc. The only way to make this argument valid would be to have a subjective level of "acceptable" details. Micromappers have since a long time mapped i
ndividual parking spots and
individual steps. These steps, which require a level of 30cm just like detailed forest and parking spots will likely be subjects to change in the future but are perfectly valid objects to map. Using too many nodes is a nuisance to the future editors and should in my opinion be avoided, just like gluing landuses to the streets for instance. I am not proud of documenting some useless nodes but it isn't a big issue.
Regarding the fact that some data is "wrong", you are right. This is the expected fate of all OSM data with time: features changes and newer sources allow corrections. I recently corrected a few thousands of buildings, some of them 10m away from their location in the database. The users who mapped them didn't commit any mistake: they did their best at the time with the available data.
Openstreetmap is a community whose users are only motivated by individual motives. At no point was there ever a limit of the micromapping details. I understand that it doesn't align with your own vision, but there is nothing wrong with it as long as it uses allowed sources and is true to these sources. Some people map steps, other forests and addresses while others still dedicate their time in quality control or superficial mapping of undermapped areas. All of this is fine. There is largely enough work to be done without wasting time and emotions.
Like any human being, I make mistakes, including in OSM, and I try to improve and not repeat them. The recent forest mapping however, isn't part of that category.
Nice week to all.