Do you mean the parking lot ? In a first approach people might map parking lots a nodes. As better imagery became/becomes available they get mapped as areas. There is no need to keep the two, but the one that should be kept is the area, as it contains more information. This is true for all features.
It’s up to the navigation system to determine where it “should drop you off”. For a parking the entrance can be determined by the road network. For multi-storey parkings you could map the entrance as amenity=parking_entrance, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking For buildings one can use the entrance tag.
That OsmAnd cannot create area features is a problem of that editor, but no reason to drop the mapped area in favour of a node. Plenty, full featured editors exist that can work work with areas.
So go ahead and combine all info from the node and the area into the area.
All the buildings east of “East Adams Road” belong to the same resort.
If I was using a Garmin unit or OsmAnd app, and searched for “Wilderness”, the way it is mapped in this map, it will point exactly to registration desk. Marking the whole set of buildings (if they were a single area) would result in theoretical average that would not be useful to late night arrival. Plus, the hotel probably has multiple entrances.
To summarize, is it more important to mark actual entrances, or to make it friendlier for navigation users?
However this was rejected because it didn’t meet the quorum for votes (as well as some technical deficiencies).
I would, however, point out that the sort of site you mention will normally have very clear signage on how to find the reception area once you have entered the site, so navigation aids may not be so important.