Losing something automatically or making one roll on a square that has always been manditory is not the same as making choices on spaces previously optional.
I see your point in part; I don't see why wording in previous editions wasn't paid attention to. The better clarity for a change was obvious, especially since they went back to 2nd in moving forward to 4th. Someone wasn't paying attention in pre-production oversight. I and my group are not the only ones (on the forums and elsewhere) who've been hesitant and had to seek clarity beyond the game.
I sincerely hope that FFG moves forward with more expansions; I also hope more attention is paid to details, so that errata, corrections, and explanations, like we are often dealing with here, are less necessary.
And specifically for the wording, a mandatory visit is implied not stated on those squares. Any writer knows that in transmitting meaning, statement overpowers implication, a difference between stated meaning and implied meaning. One is wholly clear; the other is not (and can be used to advantage for its lack of clarity). That is how language works in portraying meaning.
I was emailing with some high school students of a teacher friend of mine. I suggested the game to him for a genre fandom club among his students. They were a little overwhelmed, as was he as a first time player. Guess what was among the first three questions they emailed me? An adult and a group of late teens weren't certain; some guessed it was mandatory, and that's as far as they got.