2.6 Stadium / Sports Facility - Mapped as building shape, adjacent parking lots are mapped using Parking Lot Roads.
This one seems to contradicts most of the other items, in regards to "including parking lot(s) in one landmark" and "at the fence line".
Actually it was previously explained elsewhere that the Stadiums just look cooler when mapped to the shape. But I don't buy on that argument one bit, especially when it totally contravenes every other large facility landmark instruction. I do accept that if a road (not a parking road but an actual street) cuts between a stadium parking lot and the stadium, that road should not be crossed by the land mark.
I'm still not a big fan of marking Fire depts, city offices or DMV offices (why them and not other commonly visited gov offices like the Dept of Workforce Services). But I can't seem to effectively define my opposition in words (other than for the DMV) so I'll just leave it that I'm not a big fan of the concept.
On hospitals/clinics, I think we need to discuss what level is allowed. Do we accept all medical facilities? Is it limited to just Hospitals? Or are Insta-care's allowed/accepted. I think this field needs a bit more clarification because I don't think we want every Dr's Office marked, but can see the need for more than just Hospitals, particularly with Insta-care/remote ER type facilities.
Also I have a couple larger military bases that are marked with landmarks because there are not always road segments to be named at the full reaches of the bases, and there are areas where the border between the neighboring cities and base zig and zag a bit leaving the city layer polygon size and shape to be defined inaccurately. By using a Landmark it allows us to set the exact boundaries.
I have made landmarks with the Danger Zone code for some areas that were just put off limits to target shooting this last year because idiots were not checking their backstop and were firing towards some remote farm houses. The BLM declared the no shooting zones and I mapped them in with the Danger Zone type.
A suggestion for the Interchange landmarks, such landmarks don't always show up in the client (I've verified this) and for a couple remote interchanges I put the exit number (ex: Exit 95) in the city label for the overpass segment (and that segment only). I did it as an experiment and I like how it looked on the client. It's just a suggestion, it would only work for rural areas on interchanges that were not adjacent to a city or connected to a State or US hwy. I like the change on the Religious Site verbiage, allowing for slightly more liberal use than the prior wording which was basically "Unless the Vatican or something similar moves to the US, NO." The wording now suggested does allow for locally significant locations such as a unique historical Hindu Temple or a Hare Krishna Temple or an LDS Temple (very significant in Utah, and in many other states as well.) But maintains the instruction that regular houses of worship are not to be mapped.
And I've gone with having my Utah editors mark Golf Courses as Parks to denote them with green. Others disagree with marking golf courses because many are private, but at least around where I am most are actually publicly owned and most people really can't tell the difference. I and at least a couple of my local editors like the park category because of the way they appear green on the client. And no I don't golf so it's not an interest in being able to plan my next 9 or 18 holes.
Water: I've allowed one editor who wanted to landmark every drop of water on the map to put in a major river that is not appearing on the water layer for much of it's length as it runs through our most populous valley. But after spending much time deleting many, many, many water landmarks I'm not opposed to making this rule a blanket NO until the water layer issue is worked out with Waze.