Editorial Policy

This page describes how our articles are made. It exists so you can judge whether to trust what you read here.

1. What we are trying to do

Help someone who has to make a decision — buy this, keep that, roll out now or in Q3 — reach it faster and with fewer regrets. That goal rules out a lot of common publishing behaviour: keyword-stuffed listicles, "top 10" pages assembled from vendor marketing copy, and articles that avoid saying anything falsifiable.

2. How an article is produced

1. Question first. Every article starts as an operational question a reader actually has, not a keyword. "Is a $/vehicle/month telematics contract cheaper than per-event pricing at our scale?" is a question worth answering. "Fleet software" is not.
2. Source gathering. Exclusively public sources, in this order of preference: primary regulation and standards documents; vendor technical documentation and published pricing; published academic and industry research. This site does not conduct interviews and has no access to private or proprietary data. Where an article describes a regulation, the regulator's own publication is the source.
3. Drafting. Claims that can be checked are written so they can be checked — with numbers, stated conditions and identifiable sources.
4. Review. Checked against the sources before publication for factual accuracy, arithmetic in worked examples, and whether the conclusion follows from the evidence. This is a single-editor publication: there is no second reviewer, which is precisely why corrections from readers matter and get published.
5. Publication. With a publication date, a named author and a topic.
6. Maintenance. See section 5.

3. What we will and will not claim

• We give ranges and conditions, not single magic numbers. "Route optimisation typically cuts distance by 5–15% on unstructured manual routes, and much less where planning is already disciplined" is useful; "save 30%" is advertising.
• We name the conditions under which advice fails. Every recommendation on this site has a "this is wrong when…" case, and we print it.
• We do not rank vendors in a numbered league table. Fit depends on stop density, vehicle mix, integration estate, in-house IT capability and contract appetite — variables a universal ranking cannot hold.
• We do not publish claims we could not defend to the vendor concerned.

4. Authorship and expertise

Route & Fleet is written and edited by Nil Masferrer Jiménez, who is named on every article and is responsible for everything published here. There are no ghost bylines and no invented experts.

We state our limits plainly. This site is an informational reference compiled from public documentation. It is not written from first-hand experience of operating a fleet, and it does not claim professional credentials in transport, law or accountancy. Where a question turns on your specific circumstances — a contract term, a compliance obligation, a tax treatment — the honest answer is to check the primary source and take qualified advice, and articles here say so rather than pretending otherwise.

If an article is ever contributed by someone else, it will carry their name and a short biography, and this page will say so.

5. Dates, updates and corrections

• Every article shows a published date and a last updated date.
• Compliance articles are reviewed at least annually and whenever a rule we cite changes.
• Cost and pricing articles are reviewed at least annually, because both fuel and software pricing move.
• When we correct a material error, we fix the text and add a note explaining what changed and when. We do not silently rewrite a claim to make an old article look right.
• Typos, broken links and formatting fixes are made without a note.

To request a correction, use the contact page with the article URL and the specific claim you are challenging. Corrections take priority over everything else in our inbox.

6. Independence

Route & Fleet takes no payment for editorial coverage and accepts no vendor-supplied articles. The site is funded entirely by labelled display advertising, described in full in the advertising disclosure. Nobody on the commercial side reviews or influences editorial work.

7. Use of AI tools

We use software assistance for research collation, outlining, code samples and copy editing. Every published article is reviewed, verified and edited by a person before publication, and Nil Masferrer Jiménez is accountable for its accuracy as the named author. We do not publish unreviewed machine-generated text, and we do not publish content whose only purpose is to rank in search rather than to inform a reader.

8. Images

All illustrations are original vector artwork generated for Route & Fleet from our own design system. We do not use stock photography, we do not use third-party images under uncertain licensing, and we do not use AI-generated photographic imagery presented as real. Charts are drawn from data we state in the article.

9. Comments and community

We do not currently run comments. If we open them, they will be moderated against a published policy, and marketing links from vendors will be removed.

10. Complaints

If you believe an article is unfair, inaccurate or misleading and our first reply has not resolved it, say so again through the contact page and ask for a considered review. It reaches the same person either way — this is a one-person publication — but a second look with fresh eyes is often all a disagreement needs.