In short, yes.
I used to work for the Government Digital Service at the Cabinet Office.
Modern thinking in terms of service provision to customers is the idea of of "filter demand based upon need" - or as we used to call it "kick them off when it's irrelevant to them".
Essentially, and you'll see this in a lot of digital services offered by government, the idea is to only show you what you need to know. This is helpful sometimes, as it reduces confusion, reduces server load, reduces load on services where the answer is going to be "no" anyway, and it's supposed to reduce cost.
However, a lot of that comes at the expense of customers' (taxpayers') time, as they end up essentially going through a questionnaire to work out if they should be using a particular service, before having to answer the same questions again in order to actually use it. If you've had to claim UC, or apply for a new passport or drivers license online in the past few years you'll probably have noticed this.
Whilst this was a centralised service design idea, many other government orgs - such as TfL - seem to have adopted a similar digital service ethos.
It does in fact work for the majority of cases. At the end of the day, most people only want to find out about the bits that are relevant to them - whether that's the options of a journey on public transport, or what benefits they're eligible to claim. It does mean however that what we used to call "edge cases" are fairly badly catered for. By "edge case", I mean a situation where the demand on the service is atypical to its normal use. So, the idea of someone who's interested in maps or history, or just wants to do their own transport planning manually without an algorithm doing it for them, is a good example of this.
It's got its pros and cons, but I can see how in this instance it's frustrating.
)
