@Mateusz Konieczny:

> So if oak would have sign "Oak" (for example in botanical garden) then you would put name=Oak?

No, I wouldn't in general; perhaps if it is „The Oak“ at a place where is is a very special oak. For example, here we have the "Dick Buch" (thick beech), a natural monument offcially listed also in the  "Saarland-Schutzgebietskataster" for natural monuments with this name (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3592616366). It's really a thick beech … surprisingly, it has this name! Will you also remove it with a bot?

Maybe in this example I would put a node at the location of the sign with tourism=information, information=board, board_type=nature (or plants), see e.g. here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11535341649 – where the board has further information about birches).

I've probably already made it clear enough that I don't use the name tag arbitrarily or carelessly, and I haven't tagged amenity=toilet with name= Toilette (German) or anything similar. I see the problem as being that Mappers overinterpret the name rules and remove parts of names that have a descriptive character, e.g. in the names of shops or restaurants, but thereby castrate the name given by the owner (here, for example, there is a “Restaurant Saarland” - “Saarland” is the name of the federal state here – should it just be called “Saarland”? Would be very strange). Or “Jenny’s hair salon” becomes “Jenny’s”… So I see the problem more on THIS side of the topic, is what I mean to say.

I haven't found your misleading examples very helpful so far. The fact that you don't respond to what I think are more appropriate comparisons (e.g. with name=kiosk) doesn't seem to me like you're willing to change your perspective even a micron or to have a real dialogue. In short: it doesn't seem very constructive to me, so I don't really enjoy this discussion with you. I'll still try to answer you objectively and I've already written enough to make my point of view clear. (comment part 1 of 4)