Amenity hat noch gefehlt. Hab den Rest auch gleich erledigt.

Laut Gemeindewebseite heißt die nur Klosterkapelle.

Jap. Die sind beide nebeneinander. Das eine ist die Klosterkirche, das andere die Gemeindekirche. Ich meine, es sei St. Franzikus. Der ist über der Tür angebracht. Bin mir aber nicht sicher, deshalb hab ich es gelassen. building:architecture=baroque für beide.

Die offizielle Schreibweise ist so wie hier, aber alt_name hinzugefügt. Sollte jetzt passen.

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.

Todavía estoy esperando tu reacción.

Either you will stop instantly deleting my stuff and discuss it previously to deleting or I will report you. This is totally unacceptable.

Listen. Please explain why you just delete a lot of work, which I made.
First of all: It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable to just delete such a work without discussion.
Second, why?
Did you understand, how this works and why I did it. I expect you to revert the deletion until this is settled.

This way of editing is totally (!) unacceptable.

Why?

Ist mir ein Rätsel, wo die herkommen. So lange der Rest vom Trimmdichpfad da ist, können die weg.

I mostly stick to Bing. I know this is problematic. But from my experience in this area, the resolution of the original sources (NRCan-CanVec and PGS) is less than the inaccuracy of Bing.

If you have offsets for this area, let me know.

I changed the coast line between
Neils Harbour and new Haven Cove. The forest beween Neils Harbour Little Burnt Head Cove. So, most of the overlap has been there before. Same goes for the crossing you mentioned.

The intersection is where I stopped my work yesterday.

Da ist das kleine Verbindungsstück des Parkplatzweges von mir nicht verbunden worden. War also ungetagt.

Besten Dank für den Hinweis.

Ich war auch etwas unschlüssig. OSM-wiki hat mir da nur begrenzt weitergeholfen. Ihr könnt das gerne umtaggen. Das war nur Beifang.

Es gibt 2900 Furten mit highway=ford, aber 250.000 Furten mit ford=yes. Demnach sind 1% der Furten nach diesem Muster getagt.

1. Hab ich nichts gelöscht.
2. Wenn, dann Doppeltag, sprich highway=ford und ford=yes

Did I forget the tag?

Why that?

Are you from that area to know, if this is indeed used for harvesting timber? If yes, "landuse" is correct, if not "natural" is correct.

Btw. In that case, you must change all the other forests around it either.

Aaah. Wollte bloß nachfragen. dAs hat sich so verdächtig nach tagging for the renderer angehört.

Warum das denn?

Simply add a note-tag to it.

I have to correct you. This place is mentioned as a caravan site at the entrance of the village. It indeed has nothing else than the sanitary_dum... , but you are allowed to spend the night there and especially in France, where you are not allowed to spend the night outside of caravan sites, this is, what counts.

Please revert it, thanks.