I can certainly empathize with the farmer's situation and the financial repercussions from an event that clearly isn't their fault at all. It's strange to me though that people think that Apple/Google are _obligated_ to list their business. They're private companies, providing a service to users in exchange for eyeball time. Unless the business is outright paying Apple to be correctly listed/mapped (which I doubt they are), it doesn't seem like they're at all entitled to be listed correctly.<p>That said, it intuitively <i>feels</i> like they do at least to the farmer from the tone of the article (and similar stories), and to me as well. To me, this means that we're all sort of categorizing such mapping services in the same way that we categorize government services/utilities, and act like we _just for existing_ deserve some form of FRAND treatment from such services.<p>I wonder if there is some kind of legal framework to be found that could better align how people expect apple/google to interact, with their actual legal obligations towards listed companies (which AFAICT is fuck all).