The map on the back of the ticket

Source A: an original imagined comment by a passenger using an invented town bus service.

The little map on the ticket helped me choose where to change buses. Its straight lines made the connections easy to follow, and I did not have to unfold another sheet in the queue. As a first explanation of how the routes met, it was useful.

Then I tried to use it for a different question. Two stops looked close together, so I decided to walk between them. The diagram had not told me how far apart they were or shown the road which lay between. I had treated an arrangement of connections as a picture of the ground.

I would not replace the diagram with a tiny street map nobody can read. I would give it a clearer job. Tell me that distances are not represented, and show me where to find information for a walk. A simple map is helpful when I understand what it has made simple.

Source B: an original imagined explanation by the designer of that ticket diagram.

I began with the connections because that was the question we wanted the ticket to answer: where can a passenger change from one route to another? Drawing every turn made the small space harder to read. I straightened lines and moved stops apart so their names would remain distinct.

Those choices removed information as well as making other information clearer. I cannot expect a first-time passenger to know the history of my decisions. The diagram needs a plain label saying that it shows route connections, not walking distances. It should also direct readers to a street map or to somebody who can help them plan the next part of a journey.

No small printed surface will answer every travel question. That does not excuse leaving its limits hidden. Good design should make a useful question easier to answer and make it less likely that somebody will mistake it for the answer to a different one.

Compare what Sources A and B suggest makes a simplified route diagram useful and what its limitations are.