The tolerances aren’t just about the accuracy of electronic equipment. It’s also about the accuracy of the means of navigation that people operating under the VFR are qualified and required to use.
If people are going to continue to insist on using uncertified, unapproved GPS and map software as their sole means of navigation when purporting to operate against the VFR, I’d strongly suggest that failure to apply the VFR tolerances to controlled and restricted airspace boundaries will increase the probabilities of being caught and pinged.
The FOIs referred to by Baswell didn’t raise the issue for !!!!!s and giggles.
The avoidance rules are separate from the entry to controlled and restricted airspace rules. Both have been around for decades. It’s not hard.
The airspace boundaries cannot simply be extended to include the tolerances, because the tolerances differ by reference to AGL and day/night. The only other alternative would be to extend the boundaries to cover the greatest potential tolerance – NVFR for the steps below 10,001’ and the highest potential AGL of adjacent aircraft - capturing more airspace than is necessary for many other operations.