The anchoring point is real and you've framed it well. Most people don't even realize the first suggestion wins 80% of the time, they just go along with it.
The transit data angle is the differentiator here — straight-line midpoints are useless in cities with asymmetric transit coverage. Curious how you're handling cases where one person is in a transit dead zone and others are on a good line. Does the fairness score penalize that person's zone or just present the raw reachability overlap?
Also the budget filter suggestion in comments is interesting — have you thought about layering in venue ratings so the "fairest spot" is also the best-reviewed option in the overlap zone?
The transit data angle is the differentiator here — straight-line midpoints are useless in cities with asymmetric transit coverage. Curious how you're handling cases where one person is in a transit dead zone and others are on a good line. Does the fairness score penalize that person's zone or just present the raw reachability overlap?
Also the budget filter suggestion in comments is interesting — have you thought about layering in venue ratings so the "fairest spot" is also the best-reviewed option in the overlap zone?