Well, for starters, every time it says (if attached) in regards to parking lots and such. If you had the add-a-shape, you wouldn't have to worry about it being attached, or crossing roads. You could draw the shape on one side of the road and then draw the shape on the other side and they'd be linked.
As for cutout, what about parks that include a lake? The cutout would work great with the water layer, to give it enough room to show up. (Unless water layer already overrides park landmarks, I don't know.)
It also says in the standards to not classify anything within a landmark as a different landmark (even if it would qualify for such) because it's already inside the larger landmark. Cutout applies to that too, cut out enough space that you can classify the landmark on the inside correctly.
Essentially, my point is that the current standards are based around the limitations of the current system. Were there to be additional abilities such as cutout and add-a-shape, I'm sure the standards would change to reflect that.
As for cutout, what about parks that include a lake? The cutout would work great with the water layer, to give it enough room to show up. (Unless water layer already overrides park landmarks, I don't know.)
It also says in the standards to not classify anything within a landmark as a different landmark (even if it would qualify for such) because it's already inside the larger landmark. Cutout applies to that too, cut out enough space that you can classify the landmark on the inside correctly.
Essentially, my point is that the current standards are based around the limitations of the current system. Were there to be additional abilities such as cutout and add-a-shape, I'm sure the standards would change to reflect that.
Re: Shape Boundary Improvements