Trying to accuse me of "anti-Google bias" is amusing when you are literally paid by Google, and have an inherent conflict of interest/bias of the highest order. Pot, meet kettle. Although, really, I'm not either because I've never been paid by any company with stakes in this discussion. I know you can do better than ad hominem.
I am saying there is no evidence, or even a claim by Google, that their cars are capable of functioning outside a pre-mapped area. You have presented zero evidence of it whatsoever, and are trying to use Google's marketingspeak about how fancy their machine learning things are to insinuate I should assume Google's technology is more advanced than they can demonstrate.
You are highlighting particular capabilities of their collision avoidance on that mapped area to suggest they don't need a mapped area, which is also a non-supported claim. It is entirely plausible, and in fact, likely, that Google's visual mapping for collision avoidance is sophisticated, and yet still fully dependent on a map as a baseline.
Google's marketing claims continue to be extraordinary, and often untrustworthy, and you're going to have to do better than that.
Find me any, literally any, evidence that a Google self-driving car can operate outside the very tiny fenced in areas Google says they can operate. As far as I can tell, there is none, because you are making a claim that even Google itself is not making about it's cars.