How to deal with multiple entities that share the same address

[F P]

Found two instances of multiple entities that share the same address, with a separate marker for each entity:

1. A suburban city government, with all departments (e.g., purchasing, HR, finance -- departments that usually don't interact with the public) housed in the same building but each dept having their own individual markers.

2. Multiple business listings sharing the same address at a mailbox center. Clearly this is their virtual address is not where the businesses are actually located.

What should we do with these markers? My thinking is that they should be deleted because:

a) Reduces duplication.

b) In the case of virtual business addresses, the marker doesn't help anyone find where the businesses are located (and with these businesses, it may not matter where they are located).

c) Even if the markers remain on the map, since they would all be stacked on top of each other, if an entity I'm interested in is buried underneath other markers, I won't be able to find out more information about it because it's blocked by other markers on top.

[Srini vas]

Hi, In both the instance if they have different titles (Names), they are not considered as duplicates. Please post a link to the location you are referring, to get precise guidance. Follow this link to know what are all considered as duplicates in GMM, http://goo.gl/1YxEg .

[djboge]

They should really not be deleted. I agree with the fact they need to be handled differently though. Your example is a good one with many directly related and colocated features. Here's something related: http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2011/12/looking-for-stores-in-shopping-mall-or.html

If their only address is a PO box or some other mailbox, they should be deleted, if they don't have a physical presence at that location.

[F P]

Some examples of 1 (city offices): http://goo.gl/em1Ql http://goo.gl/rgoQm http://goo.gl/Yt1uW -- there are about a dozen total, with 8 at this marker location (which is actually the wrong spot, physically, but that's a different issue).

Some examples of 2 (businesses with mailbox addresses): http://goo.gl/uPcfT (that's the mailbox center), http://goo.gl/lj3oK http://goo.gl/eAS7v http://goo.gl/OWFPc (there are more, these are just a few examples).

[F P]

That's an interesting link. Yeah, that's a somewhat different issue, but one I had also wondered about -- for instance, what to do with all those Starbucks kiosks or bank branches inside Target and Walmart and Kroger and other stores.

[djboge]

It's pretty related. just as you have different stores in a mall, or different restaurants in a casino, you have different departments in city hall. Having some sort of parent-child relationship would be ideal.

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hi eastwest,

For the instance 1(City Government Office) - As long as the physical location of the offices marked are correct, these listings are not considered as duplicates. Also, as they all are different departments of the same office, these can be mapped separately.
For the instance 2(Businesses with mailbox addresses) - If there is no physical presence of a business at a location then they should not be mapped in the first place. It would be better to remove such features with an educative comment about the same.

@ all - Thank you for pitching in. :-)

Regards,
Chaitanya Sri

[Craig Hartel]

"Build a bot[?]..."

"Oh please tell me you are joking!" :^) - that's what I was thinking initially, until I read the rest of your post. It makes sense to mark something and then let us mere humans make the final decision on something. I like the idea that it sends a message to spammers.

With all of the spam showing up in the forums lately, I found myself longing for a "reply all" button that would send the spam right back to the source - but that won't work anyway because the spammers are probably using hijacked computers from all over the world to send out their crap.

What could be accomplished if these people used their talents for something good, eh?

[bryan]

is this coordinates 12.097434,124.800894 named multiple entities that share same address?? they both are on one place but that place is called Burabod II not Burabod I...please can you change it to Burabod II..Burabod I is located at coordinates ->12.015826,124.811981

[Craig Hartel]

Bryan,

Please post this to the Review Edits Requests forum. In the subject, list country and province so that your local reviewers can easily find your request.

Example: Request help for Philippines, Samar Island, Burabod

Hope this helps.

Mabuhay, kuya!

[vandelay]

I too am trying to clean up a spot that has about a dozen government departments listed at the same incorrect spot.  I moved the marker for the building name to the correct spot, but now I'm wondering what to do with all the other department listings that are still at the incorrect spot.  In this case it's a courthouse and a library in the same building, among others.   Then there's a separate building, though they share the same street address but different entrances that houses several other departments and has the same issue.  So there will be multiple groups of co-located markers.

 

I can move each of the markers individually to the new spot, but then I have two concerns:

 

1. How to get each of the markers all on exactly co-located, rather than a few pixels off from each other.

2. How to make sure that the building name is the label that shows up on the map, rather than having some subsidiary department show up as the main label that people see.

 

Anyone have any thoughts on how to ensure that this displays correctly?