freebeer (2018-01-30 01:57:21+00:00): Can their software handle the case of a misplaced node, I wonder?  More on that later...
.
Pieter, I have no connection to the DWG (apart from probably making them or the OSMF cringe with my behaviour).
I have tried avoiding being involved with reverting, preferring to leave that to others better qualified, although the recent Pokemon vandalism may force me to take matters into me own hands far more often.
.
I have recently concentrated on the behind-the-scenes facilities of OSM more than mapping, to try to improve the map.  So I consider myself still a novice with too much time on my hands to mix myself in matters of communication where it's better that I don't.
.
Another plus for the area-as-amenity mode of mapping is that it is more resistant to accidental tampering that is not so obvious, which I see far too often when surfing the map.  (This still hasn't come up in the forum discussion in progress.)
An actual case of this was something I repaired somewhere in Austria, where a beginner had unknowingly grabbed ahold of a node for the discounter Hofer (Aldi elsewhere) and dragging it many  hundred metres away onto a different building to which it was then automatically attached to become a part.  That  was not so trivial to fix.
Had the Hofer been mapped as an area instead of the single node, then the accidental (or malicious) repositioning of a single node would be quickly spotted as an out-of-shape building and repaired.
.
Would they be able to recognise and act on this in a way compatible with OSM which gives precedence to the mapper's way of doing things?  That is, if a mapper repositions a node and tags it as an entrance on the building outline, thereby adding useful information (although now that entrances are rendered as well, a standalone node for that would work as well as the current common practise of locating the business node or housenumber node at the entrance...)
And not to seek a revert of such a change, even though the geolocation data no longer matches what was imported?
But to seek a revert if this Parfumerie node in discussion moves the same distance northeast into an adjoining shop area?  (I don't know where it had been positioned before as a standalone node)
And what about the case where somebody traces building outlines or re-aligns them to some horribly georeferenced satellite imagery many metres offset, putting a node outside of the area, then it gets moved to the wrong absolute position, yet one that follows the OSM practise many follow of prioritising existing data over repositioning it?
.
I see in this area that like in many others, there are several mapping conventions at play, including areas with amenity data.
OSM is not a single monolithic entity driven by orders from above (yet), but many thousands of independent mappers doing their own thing in any area, hardly any of whom will be aware of these discussions or resulting policies.  One participant has decided the proper way of mapping is to delete the carefully mapped buildings in the area of a particular business, as well as anything else like car parks, pools, and such to clean out space for a single node for a hotel that had been mapped already in detail.
Any of these mappers (cats and herding come to mind) may decide to unify things to match a particular style in an area, so that a standalone node will stand out and call attention to itself, accelerating the rate at which this happens.
.
I'm sure this has all already been hashed out in the past, but it bears repeating to stress anything I repeat is not an isolated opinion flying in the face of convention.
.
Why am I still awake?