I recently came across the following business park (see image along with note below). The business park is named [Insert town name] Square and includes the three buildings within the red rectangle. The address for building 1 is on Road A. The addresses for building 2 and 3 are on Road B. The [Town] Square is currently listed on Maps as having the same address as building 1 but since it also includes buildings 2 and 3, is there a way to list all 3 addresses for the [Town] Square on Maps?
I’ve intentionally removed the addresses and street names in the event that another guide finds themselves in similar situation and can find this information useful too.
2 Likes
Hi @Sleuther
That is a difficult question.
What address(es) are used by the business center on their letterhead etc?
One thing is how snail mail are handled. Does all snail nail go to one address? Which address?
Do businesses staying in all 3 buildings use the one address or do they use the separate addresses for visitors.
Depending on your answers it might not be the best idea = correct to merge then to have only one address.
Think this way: what will be most helpful for Maps users.
Cheers
Morten
@MortenCopenhagen Thanks for your reply!
In answer to your question, each business uses their own address. For example, if building 1 is at 15 Main St, then businesses within building 1 get their snail mail at 15 Main St Suite 100 (or whatever their suite number is). If building 2 is at 30 Maple St and Building 3 is at 33 Maple St businesses get their mail to those addresses with their suite number tacked on. All of the buildings appear to be correctly listed on Maps with the correct address and suite number. However all of the businesses, regardless of what their building address is, are listed as being located within [Town] Square. And the [Town] Square only has one address listed- 15 Main St which is the same address as building 1.
In my original question, I was wondering if it would be possible to list the [Town] Square on Maps with the address something like the image below. I find it odd that businesses within buildings 2 or 3 would be listed as within the [Town] Square when the [Town] Square has a different address than building 2 and 3. But I’m also thinking that formatting the address for the [Town] Square like the image below would likely only make things more confusing. Which is why I wanted to reach out to the community here for how to best handle things. I have my thoughts but I might be the minority and I want to do, as you said, what will be most helpful for Maps users.
And if you feel like I’m making a mountain out of a molehill of an issue, please let me know. If it’s best to just let things stay the way they are I want to know that. The reason that I brought it up in the first place is that according to the signage on each of the building entrances and the sign as you drive into the each of the parking lots, refers to the entire three buildings as the [Town] Square.
Hi @Sleuther
When the businesses use the individual addresses I think it would be a mistake to try to merge the addresses in to one address. Using the field Located in seems to me to be the perfect solution.
Another way to look at it is that by have separate street entrances navigation will work properly only if they are not merged.
In fact, having two or more addresses in one address field can be confusing to users. When I come across such places (because it is technically possible to write any text in the address field) I tend to clean it up. The instances I recall is of businesses with more sites. Maybe the business owners were not aware that he/she can create a pin for each location.
I think your question is good and relevant.
If the business park had had a single entry from Main Street and every car and pedestrian would use that enterance then you could have considered using adding the building numbers into the addresses. But that is not relevant in your example.
Hopefully others will also share their views on your question.
Cheers
Morten
1 Like
The business park address usually helps people find their way in then an individual address for each business in the business park is reasonable. However, unless each of the buildings is separately owned and operated they should be one entry on Maps.
Many managed locations like business parks and shopping malls manage the Maps entries for the businesses inside the park or mall. An example is Bayside Centre in Frankston, Vic, AU. Every place in there shares the same address as the centre itself 28 Beach St, Frankston, VIC, 3199 and is managed by the centre as part of the centres services to the store. Interestingly Bayside Shopping Centre also exists as a “building” which looks editable but actually isn’t and doesn’t even turn up when searching from mobile, only PC.
Paul
I agree with you @MortenCopenhagen that putting the multiple street address would just make things more confusing. I’ve seen other squares, plazas, commons, courts, etc. where you click on the map location and it pulls up a list of all the businesses located there. For example, this plaza here. What’s thrown me off about this [Town] Square in particular is that there are 2 different street addresses for the buildings and I haven’t come across that before.
Initially I was thinking that each building should be added as a separate location and then each building would be listed as located in [Town] Square. That seemed justified to me because when I visited the location, I noticed that on the directory for each building it says “building two” or “building three”. Unfortunately, there is not one single master directory for all buildings. Each building has their own directory placard. I was thinking that if each building had their own location, then you’d have the following map layers:
- Each individual business (ie, 30 Maple St Suite 203) located in
- Each building (ie, [Town] Square Building 2) located in
- The [Town] Square
But as I’ve been pondering it and listening to the feedback from here, I’m thinking that might not be the best thing to do. It sounds like the best thing would be to leave everything the way that it is and just post my photos of the building directories? If that’s the case, then I’m looking for feedback on the following:
On the external building directory for building 2 it specifically says building 2. However, it does not include all of the businesses. If I go inside, there is a full master directory broken down by floor yet it does not say building 2 on it. The same is true for building 1. If I post the photos of the directories, I’m concerned it may be confusing which building the directory belongs to. So would the best solution then be to add the building number to the caption of my photo?
1 Like
Hi @Sleuther
Using the caption field sounds like a good idea. But if the buildings each have a listing on Google Maps you can just add then to the relevant pin. Or maybe I missed something.
Locaced in can not be in double as you mentioned. Some create a workaround by adding the mall name in the address field.
Also, I think you could consider suggesting to the place to create a common managed listing as suggested by @PaulPavlinovich . There is even an indoor map service that could make sense when they have that many tennants. Take a look here: https://www.google.com/maps/about/partners/indoormaps/
But keep in mind that this is not something we as local guides can create and edit.
Cheers
Morten
2 Likes
Thanks @MortenCopenhagen for the response. Each building does not currently have their own listing on maps. I had thought about adding them given that the directories delineate them as buildings 1, 2, and 3 but am now rethinking that idea. I’m wrestling what would be the most helpful to map users.
If I could track down who owns/manages the property, I would suggest the common managed listing. However, even after going through city tax records, I can’t seem to come up with an answer. It would be nice to see the buildings on Maps have the different floors listed but as you said, that’s not something local guides can create and edit.
1 Like
