[pdonis]

Google's defense to a lawsuit would be simple: that it makes no guarantee that maps is accurate, and you use it at your own risk. If that defense ever proves to be insufficient, their obvious next step is to no longer make maps available for free. Then we will see how many people are actually willing to pay for actual accuracy.

In the case of the irrigation road, since from another post of yours upthread it appears to be private property, it should be signed accordingly to make it clear to people that they are trespassing if they use it.

[photonbeam]

In some jurisdictions you cant just say whoops when its public safety related

[pdonis]

Unless the jurisdiction has some sort of contract with Google regarding the use of maps for public safety, I don't see how Google could be held responsible. Google does not make any guarantees about the accuracy of maps, and you use it at your own risk. That means the safety risk is on you, not Google.

Yes, it would be nice if Google would take steps to ensure the accuracy of maps and make guarantees accordingly, but it doesn't (and I don't see how it ever will unless and until maps becomes a paid application instead of a free one).

[sakjur]

> That means the safety risk is on you, not Google.

There could be jurisdictions that disagree with this. The US delegates quite a lot to contract law, but say Germany (I’m not sure if they do, but it sounds like it could be a German thing) could definitely decide that the act of providing a map with navigational assistance is sufficient to make some legal guarantees about accuracy.

[lakpan]

Then Google Maps becomes unavailable in your country and I want to see how long it takes for that to be reinstated with a “Sorry oh Google”

[iainmerrick]

If their competitors are brave, they'll stick around and take over.

[liquidgecka]

Its illegal to block an irrigation road without prior approval and people straight up ignore signs, especially when the authoritative source says "turn there NOW!" We know this because fedex trucks have traveled down this "road" multiple times despite it being marked as private in several places along the way.

Also, Google is currently being sued for a situation exactly like this so we will know soon enough if that defense works: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/lawsuit-says-man...

[vanviegen]

In their defense: I think FedEx drivers will often have to make deliveries on private grounds.

[liquidgecka]

Thats driving on what is known as the "curtilage," the space on a private property that is effectively "partially public". FedEx can drive up a driveway, and use your walkway to deliver a package. That is okay. FedEx can not jump your fence and enter your backyard to leave your package somewhere safe. The backyard is off limits. As such, an irrigation access road is NOT within the curtliage of any property and thus is more of a "backyard" to those not permitted. There are signs and gates which state that yet FedEx directed its drivers down that road several times and they complied.

[vanviegen]

I imagine the 'curtilage' for many properties had quite a few 'private property' signs. If GPS directs a driver into a road marked as such, a driver may easily assume that there will be a delivery address on that private property, which would warrant ignoring the signs.