The development of “route maps” for spatial analytical methods is a pursuit with important ramifications. Comber et al. propose a route map to guide applications of geographically weighted regression consisting of a three-step primary pathway and a series of secondary arterials. This comment first highlights some concerns about the underlying “map” (i.e., experimental setup and assumptions) and then with the proposed “route” (i.e., core decisions and evaluation criteria). It closes by suggesting a more general focus on identifying modeling issues with the highest impact and facilitating consensus-building, which could improve the future production of route maps for navigating the methodological landscape in spatial analysis.