Honestly, just looking at the sub-classes much les the many different imaginable concepts for woodland guy with weapons and magic leave me with much broader view of skills than that three or four "hhnter/scouts" that were claimed as "or not a ranger".What about Athletics? Hard to imagine a ranger who can't climb a tree or swim across a river.
What about Animal Handling? Calming a spooked horse seems like it should in their wheelhouse.
Include these skills on the "required" list and the ranger player doesn't get to make any choices regarding skills whatsoever. That makes each ranger a cookie-cutter character wrt skills. Which is rather boring IMO.
I think allowing players freedom of creativity is more important than making sure they are doing it "right". I realize that many DMs/designers have the impetus to say, "you're doing it wrong, give it here". However, the PC is the one piece of the game world the belongs to the player. As such, the player's vision regarding their character takes precedence over the DM's, IMO. Maybe the player wants to be less Aragorn and more a military scout. In that case, a different skill may take priority over Nature, and it's not our place as DMs to tell those players that they are doing it "wrong".
Most of the times, players will choose the skills you listed, or a very similar set. IME, players will play to type much more often than against. That said, I'm still of the opinion that they should have the freedom to choose themselves, rather than the DM making those choices for them.
This gets even broader when one thinks of multi-classing and many concepts there.
While I could get behind the "when you get to 10th and get the stealth driven festure, gain the proficiency if you dont already have it" the more this drive for front loading with skills the ranger dip goes and the more it turns into "help my preference concept get more" the less it seems to carry much value to me to offset the loss in differentiation and choice.