I agree that the question should be reopened, and I respectfully disagree with the closure of the question. The issue stated in the question is clear and understandable to anyone who uses Google Maps. I do not see what further details or clarity are required.
I also want to point out that the question is similar to the first Web Apps SE question: How do I delete my Facebook account? (+160 votes). That question also simply states the problem that the asker wants to solve without providing any background research or additional details. Yet, it was not closed, and it received helpful answers. I don’t see why the question about Google Maps should be treated differently.
Yet-to-be-explained "I know it when I see it" policy
It would be helpful if the moderator who unilaterally closed the question could explain, specifically, what details or clarity should be added to the question to have it reopened or prevent it from being closed in the first place.
There seems to be some yet-to-be-explained "I know it when I see it" policy regarding showing research as a requirement, "meeting quality standards" (which are not clearly defined), and what other details are needed to avoid question closure.
Relevant meta posts:
The votes on these meta posts and their answers indicate that the community is generally dissatisfied with the moderator policy of unilaterally closing questions based on their personal judgment. These moderator actions do not reflect the community consensus.
Until we have an official moderator answer on one or more of these meta posts explaining the reason behind the question closures, I fear we will be seeing more of these unexplained question closures. A clear and detailed explanation of the criteria for avoiding question closure would be very helpful so that the community can provide constructive feedback and suggestions on the proposed policy. Since this is a community-run site, the community should have a say in setting the policy, not just the moderators.
"I know it when I see it" is not a good policy. It is vague, subjective, and inconsistent. It does not foster a welcoming and constructive community.
I also concur with pppery's comment on my answer and find the Web Apps SE moderation to be concerning:
The standard the moderators are applying, of course, is unattainable - every single question asked in the last 4 days has been closed and of the ~60 questions asked since the end of the moderation strike ~45 of them have been closed.
The last thing that an SE site with very low activity and user participation needs is stricter question requirements. This would be counterproductive. Stricter question requirements would further reduce the number of questions and answers that are allowed to be posted on this site, which in turn would discourage new and existing users from participating and contributing to this site. This could lead to a downward spiral of declining activity and quality.
I suggest that we focus on encouraging more questions and answers rather than imposing more restrictions. This way, we can foster a more active and vibrant community that can attract and retain more users and, ultimately, improve the quality and relevance of the site.