I am sorry but I don't agree with their arguments and I have addressed them before. Let me restate.
Mark makes the argument that some of the precise forests are "wrong" and again, in some cases, he is right. I am afraid it applies to the complete set of OSM data. At some point, it should be deleted and corrected with better sources.
Both these statements are valid but not as a counter argument to the precise mapping in general.
You always write about "precise mapping". But your mapping is not. To be very clear, with the same source as you, I would have done a *better* mapping job while using 20 times less nodes. And several other mappers would have done the same.
But it is not a problem, you are doing a great job of mapping huge areas of forest. The fact that maybe you "edit mechanically while thinking about something else" is probably an advantage that allows you to map such big areas.
The only problem is that you accuse of vandalism people who are "simplifying" some of your edits. For me, it is far from obvious that this simplification is bad, and I write that, because I found cases when deleting 95% of your nodes actually improves the map.
Marc