Can someone comment if its ok to change thanks
Yes, I’d say it’s okay to remove the “continues” from both directions at that junction.
No need for map comment.
I have tested the continue on a crossroad where a user had not been aware of the junction (60mph blind corner into a crossroad). Waze had not given warning of any junction and slowing from 60 to 0 was highly dangerous. If someone is following, a common occurrence these days, there would have been fatalities. In this case, waze and map editors would be sued for NOT supplying suitable information. Waze tells drivers to “continue for 9 minutes” previously so this instruction must be overridden in these cases. It would be on a case by case basis and if the junction is clearly marked then it would not be needed. But I can show T junctions with huge signs that have been driven into because drivers “could not see the sign” (massive 10 foot sign)
Waze nor its editors are going to get sued as using a sat-nav does not give drivers carte blanche to drive without due care or attention. Just because the road has a speed limit doesn’t mean you must drive at it, within a foot of the car in front, at night, in the rain, around a blind corner or summit.
The continue instruction is a useful addition that will improve some junctions but it does not require a blanket adoption, as you say a case-by-case approach is needed. If a car can’t see a 10-foot sign then the only reproach may be to the local authority for not planning the junctions better.
Agreed.
On this: I’ve seen URs at crossroads to request Continue instructions for Give Way lines just on the basis that they’ve been seen elsewhere. It’s nothing to do with navigation ambiguity or inadequate road signage or visibility, it’s just the Wazer’s expectation of Waze at give ways - as predicted, a precedent has been set.
So is the latest guidance still to add TIOs to rural crossroads (at give ways) wherever there’s a UR requesting one? What about requests at junctions that aren’t 100% “rural”?
UK policy has never been to add Continue TIO just because a UR appears. The guidance states that TIOs should only be added where essential for navigation on a case-by-case basis.
So why do others appear to have added continue TIOs with no comment which don’t conform to the draft guidelines? Should these be removed?
Umm… possibly because if you read back through this topic you’ll see the discussion was divided and no clear consensus was reached. Also it is rather difficult to police as TIOs require scripts to highlight them if you want to look for them 
I was aware of the draft guidelines, and proceeded accordingly. I noticed a bunch of them recently, in particular not by novice editors, so I reviewed this topic and wondered if I was missing something. Hence my question - all I want is clarity on what the current situation is. :?
Unfortunately I don’t think you are going to get a definitive answer on this subject as there is a lack of agreement among the senior editors on the subject. 
I think (but I am not sure) that if there were a vote, the “Do not add them” group would be in the majority, but there are a few editors who like adding them to “rural crossroads”.
Personally, I dislike them as I think it is an unnecessary instruction, which adds nothing to the navigation and encourages drivers to expect Waze to tell them what to do, rather than which way to turn.
My standard reply on the subject is:
Waze does not have traffic lights, pedestrian crossings or cross roads in the program, it is purely a navigation system. If you need to turn, it will give you instructions, but stopping at traffic lights, cross roads, pedestrian crossings or any other traffic signs, when you are going straight on, is down to the driver. Hope this information helps
I’m in the other camp, and tend to be apologetic in my reply to URs.
I think the only way to resolve this eternal conflict would be to have a “continue straight at crossroads notification” tick box in the app settings