I don't think it would. This particular method is likely to be unactionable, due to comparing a base map data source to another. The problem is that either App

I don't think it would. This particular method is likely to be unactionable, due to comparing a base map data source to another. The problem is that either Apple have rights to this data source, in which case they should just be fusing it together with their other data. Or they don't have rights, in which case they can't use the results of this comparison to fix data without also risking tainting said data. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know where the line would be drawn. But automatically or manually filing data bug reports based on results like these seems very dodgy. Second, automatically generating and filing hundreds or thousands of bugs would just render the submission channels useless. Just triaging geocoding bugs requires ridiculous amounts of skilled human effort by people whose time would most likely be better spent in fixing the geocoder. It might be different for things known to be guaranteed data bugs, but then your methodology certainly shouldn't involve a geocoder. And you'd run into the rights issues of the previous paragraph. There are good ways of doing automatic quality evaluation or semi-automated quality improvement. But they're really going to be more sophisticated. And unless Apple's expensively bought maps people are totally incompetent, they are already doing such things. (Edit: I don't mean to belittle the efforts of the original poster. It's good that somebody tried to quantify the quality of Apple maps rather than relying purely on anecdotal evidence. I just don't think that it's a method that'd have much relevance to the way Apple works.)