Naming Buildings : Whats the right way

Hello. I have been wondering, what’s the right way to name buildings?

  1. By adding a name to the building shape’s tag
    (Pro: Sounds better and is perhaps better because one can see building names online, helping find directions and locations.
    Con: Looks cluttered)

  2. By creating a new independent node and giving it a name tag
    (Pro: Looks cleaner, since the names are not rendered and not visible on the map.
    Con: Because names are not visible, difficult to see map and find locations. )

When it is the name of the building (and not of the POI inside), I would add the name tag to the outline.
In case it is the name of a shop, craft etc. you can put it on a node together with a shop, craft, etc. tag
A node with just a name tag is meaningless IMHO, because you do not say what is named. How does a data consumer this node is the name of the building and not of a shop, room, escalator inside it ?

Arguments such as “cluttered”, “not visible” are only applicable to a particular rendering, not to the data. As a mapper you should only care about the data, not about its visual representation

As escada wrote: a node with just a name and nothing else is meaningless.
And adding building=yes to it would result in a building within a building, which is incorrect.

Doing something because it looks good is wrong, because it is mapping for the renderer.

@markusHD true that.

@Escada true. I was just looking at well mapped areas and could often not find building names in the rendered map. So was wondering what people do generally. Maybe those names haven’t been added.

@hadw absolutely right.

It’s possible to armchair map buildings, but it normally requires an on the ground survey to find their names.

Also, the renderer won’t overlap text, so if an area is heavily mapped, a lot of the higher level detail will not get rendered.