I think this points out the difference. I would consider
point charts, amenities of the resort itself, and quality of the touches to be about the overall resort. It would not be part of the location.
Examples about the location would be, what's within walking distance (BLT to MK or SSR to DS), what's within view (GFV to MK or BCV Beach to fireworks), and are there multiple options for transportation (Boat/Walk for BWV and Boat/Monorail for Poly). I also consider the Disney pricing expectation for the area. Example GF/Poly vs AK (while some love the AK grounds because of the savanah amenity).
See while you may value the location less the actual location is still better though. If I say I have no issues taking the subway 1 stop to be at Times Square that's fine. It does not however make it a better location than the condos 1 block south with partial views of Time Square.
On the flip side someone may have a terrible fear of heights and never want to go on the Skyliner. That doesn't negate that RIV is still attached to Epcot and HS. It's a personal choice to not value that when deciding on the best overall resort for you but RIV is still attached to the two parks.