POIs: Nodes vs. outlines

A POI is traditionally defined as a node. However, many POIs being buildings and grounds, it is possible to trace an outline and assign the same metadata to it as one would to a traditional POI. For the variety of current and conceivable uses of OSM, what is the best practice when mapping POIs?

1. Trace the building or grounds, name it, assign meta as you would to a POI, do not create a POI node.
   Pros: Single set of meta, most accurate representation of the physical shape of a POI.
   Cons: Some applications only retrieve nodes as POIs.
2. Trace the building or grounds, assign meta as you would to a POI. Create a POI node, assign the same meta.
   Pros: Covers all possible current and future uses of OSM.
   Cons: Duplicated meta (more effort, more room for discrepancy if one set of data gets changed and the other does not). The applications (e.g., map renderes) that look for both nodes and shapes as POIs may end up showing two POIs with the same name.
3. Trace the building or grounds, enter minimal meta to ensure proper rendering (shading). Create a POI node and assign all applicable meta.
   Pros: Most renderers should show both the POI as a point and the shading of the outline, without duplicate names appearing on the map.
   Cons: Meta is somewhat arbitrarily distributed between the outline and the node. Compromising (limiting) data in favor of the "lazier" existing users. The assumption about some data users (renderers, etc.) being unaware of outline POIs may be an incorrect one.

I would lean towards 1. Is there a consensus? A wiki article would be nice.