MaestroGlanz (2019-06-13 18:34:46+00:00): First: Please write in English! I'm no native speaker and you are probably neither. So this is fair.

Second: Why did you delete without discussion? That's a question, I asked multiple times and I can expect an answer to that. That behaviour lacks any (!) common basis of good manners. I'm still upset about it and also for a good reason.

Third: Your points

In general, you do not mention, that the "better" mapped forests, which had been there previously, actually were the natural reserves (protected area). If you add a void to the forest (even just a lake), you add wrong information to the protected area. That is an important information, which you do not mention. That is not fair.
Because of that reason, the protected area and the forest MUST be separated. That was one of the reasons I did all this.

Furthermore, you do not mention the fact, that the revert by YOU, created exactly the same problem. See map=16/1.4454/-66.9065 for example.

about https://wguayana.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/osm010.jpg
There is NO (sic!) information I deleted. I deleted nothing except for forest squares, which were not part of a relation and were covered by mine. It might have resulted in a loss of VISBILE information, like in this case. I don't deny, that my forest still needed improvement. But at some point you have to start.

This statment:
"◾️ Al cubrir toda esa gran área de polígonos contiguos indiscriminadamente, se está perdiendo una valiosa información geográfica que en muchas zonas ya estaba cartografiada."
is simply not true. False. I deleted nothing and the forest only appears more accurate, but isn't, because of double tagging.

"◾️ Trazando líneas individuales alrededor de toda la masa forestal que quiere agregar, y luego agrupándola toda en una Relación, donde sus líneas del contorno tengan el rol de “outer”."

Is the ideal says who? If there is one big, gigantic, enourmous relation (bigger than Germany), like you said, this leads to several problems.
First: server requests for bounding boxes within the forests will MUCH more likely not give back the forest, so the result will be wrong.
Second: calculating the forest for rendering will be extremely calculation costly. Like it is on coast lines. That's why they are only calculated every 4 weeks. It would be similar complex.
Third: Editing the forest, like adding voids, will be extremely difficult. Normal PCs won't be able to handle that number of nodes, lines and polygons properly. People, who don't have a high-end PC won't be able to edit them. Their PC will be slowed down by the amount of data and probably crash. And only if they are able to get the relation at all, since the server result will likely be wrong.

The polygon approach, which I did, makes it easy to adjust then, partially delete them and add voids. If there are parts which can be joined, this can also be easily done, just like dividing.

Fourth: It is already common by other mappers in that area (south west) and also other areas around the world to divide big forest instead of making it one.

Summa summarum: The previous mapped forest was not more accurate. There was no loss of information by my edit (only the rendering, but don't map for the renderer). The previous forest had the same issues in some cases. I had very good reason to do it the way I did it.