It certainly feels like it.
If it did not have that snark though, one could make the point that the data could still be 'deanonimitized'.
If it did not have that snark though, one could make the point that the data could still be 'deanonimitized'.
This is a guess, but I suspect the point had to do with data privacy. Maybe someone wrote legislation that prohibits public websites from hosting ads, or third party browser-tracking software. And google maps fits that.
In the parent comment, there's also this bit:
> but it is a lot cheaper than google maps
If true, this is an example of government regulations working as intended, and saving money.