I disagree with an exercise in my cat theory book.
In exercise 5.1.2.35 it asks me what idea is captured by the free category on $G$, where $G$ is the graph whose vertices are all the European cities and whose arrows are airplane flights connecting the cities.
The solution argues that this captures the idea of flight itineraries. However to me it just captures rubbish. You would have morphisms of the like
Amsterdam → Moscow → Amsterdam → Genova → Amsterdam → Paris → Amsterdam → Rome → Amsterdam
And now, this is not a composition on many morphism, this is a possible path on the underlying graph which was stuffed inside $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{G}}(\mathtt{Amsterdam}, \mathtt{Amsterdam})$.
In this interpretation of the category, the intention is that you should read $\hom(A, B)$ as being the answer to the question "Which itineraries start in city $A$ and end in city $B$?"
Ideas like whether or not an itinerary passes through another city is expressed in different terms. For example, given an itinerary $f$ from Amsterdam to London, the assertion:
expressed in category language would be the issertion