The reinstatement of pavement markings after resurfacing will typically entail like-for-like remarking of the resealed road sections. However, there are cases where sections in between planned reseal (infills) may be left - untouched or are not required in the renewal contract irrespective of infill markings’ service life and condition. This gives room for poor marking continuity and reduction of the markings service level. As the asset management of long-life high-performance markings includes a duty of care around cost-effectively realising value from planned maintenance, there is the need to consider infills when reinstating long-life markings on resurfaced road sections. This paper presents a method to determine infill sites for cost-effective renewal to forestall returning to the same road in the future, thereby managing customer delay and realising cost savings without compromising road safety. The method considers tactical assessment merits and lifecycle costs to demonstrate its suitability to solve the problem. Various markings reinstatement cases were investigated where the results showed method applicability and highlighted sensitivities to remark length and installation time. The method supports the asset owner/manager to plan pavement markings renewals at the tactical/section level and could benefit from further studies that consider more complex scenarios, extended variables, and uncertainties.