Well you certainly didn't read it.
So, a small data set of 2000+ known points used to compare the two systems is less accurate than a bunch of completely unspecific, anecdotal claims? If you're going to claim that the linked study can't be used (at all) to compare relative accuracy, then nobody should be able to complain about it because they're working from *SMALLER* sets of data.
And, here, let me include the whole section you picked a short quote from. (Apparently, even the tl;dr version was too much for you.)
The highlights
This is a really long post, although it was fun to write, so here are the important points upfront:
- Google data isnt much better than Apple data, at least as far as this test is concerned
- Google always returns a result, while Apple only seems to return results when they are a precise match, possibly explaining why the latters data appears to be less complete
- This test doesnt really tell us anything about how accurate the maps are, however, both because of the small data set, and because of the tests nature
The reason the test "doesnt really tell us anything about how accurate the maps are" is because it only compares the Ontario, Canada area. That makes it impossible to draw strong conclusions about the app world wide. However, it *does* indicate that things may not be as bad as so many people claim (with even less evidence to back them up).
This is the most thorough analysis I've been able to find, and it shows there's not really any significant difference between the accuracy of the two maps (at least for Ontario, Canada).
If you have better data, provide it.
If you're just disagreeing with it because it doesn't match your own preconceptions and biases, admit it and move on.