Is it really a valid test to just drive there and sit in the parking lot? They mention sitting there for 15 minutes at two locations, but don't discuss the rest

Is it really a valid test to just drive there and sit in the parking lot? They mention sitting there for 15 minutes at two locations, but don't discuss the rest. So perhaps they actually went into the building other times. It is not clear to me. If you are just sitting in a shared parking lot with other business around how are they supposed to label the location? If it gets labeled as probably being the coffee shop, then its not a visit to a sensitive location which needs to get deleted. Scenario: You navigate to a sensitive location. Close out Google Maps and do whatever. Now they forget where you navigated to, because it is sensitive. Some time later, you open Google Maps and navigate home. It now has an unknown location as your starting point, and guesses somewhere close. So it picks up the coffee shop as potential. And uses that as the starting point for the new trip. How could they also remove that coffee shop? That would require retaining the fact that you were at a sensitive location there. Also note that the lack of data around sensitive locations in your history may be an indicator for those looking for it. If you had gone to the coffee shop it would show up as the coffee shop, but instead it shows up as no data. I would much rather it have a nearby plausible location than a total gap in the data. And I think the most important part of it is they don't have any history of anyone going to that specific location. So a subpoena asking for everyone who went to that location returns 0 results. Getting a subpoena for everyone who went to the neighborhood or the coffee shop, should be harder, and even if they get it its not likely to provide any useful info.