No, these are in the Denver area, with very good resolution. I looked at one pretty closely, and could see where the images were stitched together. I haven't studied the other one that closely, but they are the only two that were way off on distance.
On longer courses, I see variance more often, but it normally isn't more than 100 feet, or so. Point-to-point are more-pronounced than a loop.
But, a great example of how the math and programming behind the satellite mapping programs is not precise is: http://www.mapmyrun.com/run/un...-denver/525880721378
Look at the west end of that course. Mile 13 is just before the turnaround. Looking at Miles 12 & 14, they are almost on top of one another. But, look at Miles 11 & 15, and they are very far apart. Straight line each way, same road. Look a little east at Miles 10 & 16, and 9 & 17, and they are closer together. The variance is much more than one would expect on a straight-line, out-and-back course.
That is why I don't rely too heavily on the accuracy of any mapping program. They get close, but I always have a contingency for adjustment, both shorter and longer.