How to merge business listing and building with boundary

[StephenMapO]

Here is one that I can't get my head around.  "Congregation Beth Elohim" in Acton, MA is on the map twice.

Once as a business listing with a point:

http://goo.gl/CT7nO

Once as an anonymous building with a boundary:

http://goo.gl/TxKvB

I've been trying to get this corrected but all of my edits have been denied.  The first thing I did was add a boundary to the business listing.  That was denied because the building already exists with that boundary.

Then I tried adding the business name to the anonymous building.  I was hoping that that would give the the option of marking the duplicate.  It didn't  Then that was denied because the business listing already exists.

Really, the two need to be merged into one feature on the map, but I can't for the life of me figure out the mechanics of making that happen.

[Saikrishna Arcot]

Actually, it's best if the building remains completely separate from the business. One of the reasons for this is that if the business closes, then the building still exists as a separate feature. If the two were combined, then the building would be deleted along with the business. You can however, improve the building polygon (it was auto-generated on Google's side and is accurate only to some extent).

[StephenMapO]

If keeping buildings and businesses separate is the actual policy, then a bunch of help documentation needs to change.  The documentation for "adding shapes" specifically shows adding a polygon around the business listing for a church:  http://support.google.com/mapmaker/bin/static.py?hl=en&page=guide.cs&guide=1094315   The listing I am working with is a synagogue, so I would think it would be very similar.

If the two are separate, what should the buliding be named?

[Jaxcoffee]

I answered on the edit itself, but will do so here also.

The building edit should remain as neutral as possible, including not adding a name. More detailed information is best added to a POI, and not the building.

[Flash]

The way the system was set up and what was then later to be found to be best practices differs.  Trying to get the documentation changed is an effort; Google people have acknowledged this is the best practice but changes to documentation have to go through multiple layers of drafting and approval, so they normally lag behind.

The building should not have a name, as you can see it saved just fine without one.  Most buildings in real life don't have names; a building and a business/organization occupying it are two different things.

[StephenMapO]

Does that existing boundaries that are attached to business listings should be deleted and that buildings should be created with that boundary when we run across them?

[DdDave]

No, we don't want to delete them because it messes with the Places page and assiciated reviews & data.  You should leave it and star issue 830 in the issue tracker, and hopefully we will eventually be able to correct them.  Googlers have the power to separate them, but not us mortals.