Found this from another lawyer on the web:
State ex rel J.B., Case No. A-2228-08T4 (N.J. Ct. App.; Sept. 27, 2010)
Some key language in the opinion:
The [c]ourt finds that other than very recently what would have happened is . . . that the State would have brought in an atlas map and ask[ed] somebody familiar with the area to point on the map where different locations are and how you would get there. And this is just an updated manner of getting the same information. If the [d]efense wants to show that the information is incorrect, they can certainly do it by either cross examination or they can do exactly what I just suggested and bring in an atlas map and show where the exhibit that the State is offering is incorrect.
Pretty sound reasoning in my view.