Honestly, the former (with the addition of a “the next turn is in a couple of miles” type comment if I know it is going to be a while before I need to give them the next instruction), because that’s how I was taught to drive, and it’s how I believe everyone ought to be able to drive. Satnavs are an amazing tool, but they should NEVER, EVER, be treated as anything other than an advice giver, a magic box that can, if it so chooses and if it’s actually working correctly as opposed to having gone off in an electronic tizzy because it thinks you’re driving across an unpaved field half a mile away from where you really are, give the driver a nudge in the right direction. Definitely not, under ANY circumstances, should we be expecting or even encouraging drivers to assume that their satnav will tell them what to do at every point along their journey where guidance might be required.
And honestly, if that is what driving instructors are genuinely teaching their students these days (I know they do include satnav use as part of lessons and the test, but I was under the impression it was just by way of making sure people understood the essentials of how to use them), then it’d be an utter disgrace. If we’re not teaching new drivers how to read the road ahead of them and are instead instilling in them from day one the mistaken belief that the satnav will tell them what to do, then it’d explain a lot about the instances of dodgy driving I see all too often from younger drivers…
Now, that said, if I knew that a crossroads was coming up where they needed to slow/stop but where the sightlines were poor, or the signage/road markings faded, then I may well give a prompt to the driver to warn them. But note “to warn them” - however I worded it, I’d be making it absolutely bloody clear that they’d need to be slowing down as they approached, not simply telling them “oh BTW, there’s a crossroad coming up, go straight on when we get to it”.
Until such time as Waze gives us the ability to warn users in that same way (1), tweaking the map data so that it gives users the exact same instruction as they might also receive when approaching the same junction along the major route (2) means we can be absolutely certain that, sooner or later, someone will misinterpret that instruction as implying they’ve got priority, causing an accident, and ending up as this weeks latest “because my satnav told me to” story…
I wouldn’t feel comfortable making a change to the map data which I believed could make an accident significantly more likely to occur, so if it did become policy to add continue TIOs to even some, let alone all, crossroads, then I’d simply stop editing crossroads until the policy was revoked.
(1) which I think would be a really bad idea, as it would open up another can of worms debate about the wider legal liabilities and responsibilities in the event of incorrectly mapped junctions of all types where such instructions were used.
(2) because if we’re so concerned that users might come grinding to a halt at a crossroads, totally baffled by the sudden choice of possible routes ahead of them in the absence of any explicit instruction from Waze, then logically we’d have to provide a continue TIO for all of the “straight on” routes through the junction, not just those that cross over the major road.