This help topic has all sorts of opinions. I don't think there's much reason to rule out given kind of Street View use base on it.

"Lets avoid everything Google cause better safe than sorry" is one way to go but similarly one can probably argue that it's safer not to publish anything at all as you can never rule out that some corporate lawyer makes some odd claim about it.

It's about in what way you use the imagery. It's not really apt to compare checking an individual piece of factual information with tracing an aerial imagery. The topic also says something about differences between jurisdictions but in which jurisdiction are facts copyrightable really?

Should Google really own copyright on this piece of factual information then no-one could distribute this information without permission from Google, no matter from where the information is acquired.

Above I meant derivative work in sense of copyright. In that sense what work could have be derived here? All they did is they added a tag about piece of factual information. The also didn't do so in any systematic way that could have indicated possible infringement of database rights.