There are too many contradictory opinions on what it means to perform or log
approaches under actual or simulated instrument conditions. John Lynch
carefully avoids the issue in the FAQs, saying only that in order to log
instrument flight time you must fly the aircraft solely by reference to the
instruments and that if you want to log an approach you must fly it at least
beyond the FAF; you can't just fly to the FAF and call it an approach.

Well, fine. If you fly an approach solely by reference to the instruments
until you are at least beyond the FAF, then it seems to me that you should
be able to log it as an instrument approach.

Requiring the flight to be IMC all the way to the MAP seems to have too many
problems. For one thing, the vast majority of approaches are not flown all
the way to the MAP. You have to take over visually at some point and land or
go missed. If you are flying a typical non-precision approach and can't see
the runway until you reach the MAP, then odds are you don't have the
visibility minimums to land. Also, flying all the way to the MAP is
discouraged at many airports. Similarly, it is rare to fly the full approach
before the FAF. You frequently get vectors to final, omit the procedure
turn, etc.

The regulations should be interpreted in such a way as to make it possible
to comply with them; otherwise there is no point in even having the
regulation.

I tend to be rather conservative and don't log all the approaches I probably
could.