Maps are, infamously, a place where "truth" is not usually an attainable goal. All cartographers are faced with the decision between creating a map that is uncontroversial vs. one that is useful. When possible they optimize for both, but when the two (frequently) are in opposition to one another, it's time to choose.

> Matthew Hyland, [...] said he considered those all made-up names, some of which he deleted from the map

Unfortunately all place names are made-up names. If everyone suddenly agrees to start calling a place by a new name, who is Google to argue? But what if people can't agree and some start calling it by a new name and others don't? And of course you can't just poll every resident for their opinion, so you're stuck with relying on other signals...like local advertising and publications.

Appeals to authority are also of dubious value. There may be an "official" map somewhere, but if it doesn't reflect the day-to-day usage of the space, is it very useful? Prescriptivist maps generally enjoy about as much success as prescriptivist linguistics -- pretty to look at, but not what you want in your back pocket.