In message , at 08:15:09 on Mon, 17 Dec
2012, Roland Perry remarked:
In the mean time they seem to be over-selling the very few aspects that
have been implemented on the buses: viz it doesn't work for non-UK
cards, and it probably doesn't work for prepay cards or those
associated with an under-18 bank account.

For completeness, it's now been drawn to my attention that the buses
also don't [yet] accept Orange's "Quick Tap" NFC payment service, which
is in effect a pre-paid Barclaycard[1].

[1] Which like the plastic is branded Paypass, rather than Paywave.
--
Roland Perry

"tim....." wrote:

A genuine stop at an OIS that looks like transfer generating two
unresolved journeys causing them to receive two maximum charges and no capping

Is that still broken? It needs fixing such that if you over-run the
timeout the next touch in, if it is at a station that is a possible part of
an OSI, closes the previous journey and opens a new one.

Penalties should always allow false negatives if that is an alternative to
silly false positives like those.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

Paul Corfield wrote:

Oh and while we're on this subject please tell me what fool proof
system Paris or Berlin use that prevents exactly the same problem
happening to tourists?

The Parisian system is best described as silly, though at least there is
slightly more consistency than London.

I probably don't need to tell you for Berlin, but the answer for those who
don't know is the correct one, which is that in Germany they do not sell
"bus tickets" or "train tickets" in city transport areas, simply public
transport tickets for a single journey involving an unlimited number of
changes of vehicle and/or mode, sometimes constrained by time but usually
not. Therefore, just as if you are turfed off a train early, your ticket
continues to be valid for the next one.

This is exactly how it should be. I recognise the issues you often explain
in implementing it in London due to cost, but it is IMO the right answer
for any fully regulated public transport system like London's, or indeed
the national railway system.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:53:24 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
[strokes white cat]

Are you *sure* that's a cat you're stroking? ;-)

It better be - its purring!

B2003

In message , at 10:16:36 on
Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Paul Corfield remarked:
There is no precedent that I can think of where the technical and
process data on a project that deals with financial and banking
security matters has been disclosed to the general public.

Published plans for ITSO rollout, while not perfect, tend to contain
more detail about how the process will roll out.

This is clearly an ambitious project, but they must have a plan (despite
the current lack of transparency making it look like they are making it
up as they go along, eg the way that the treatment of OnePulse cards has
only just emerged, and they don't yet mention whether pre-pay cards work
or not).

In your opinion Roland.

I really do hope they have a plan (they've been working on the project
five years now!)

And despite saying "everything"(sic) being done by the customer's bank,
there's no information about who to call (bank or TfL, and if the latter
the Oyster helpline or somewhere else) if you suspect a problem, nor any
detail about who will be running the online registration and statement
system.

You haven't looked very hard have you?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...n_buses(1).pdf

Contact details are included on the above help sheet.

Further information is always welcome. As you say, that one had escaped
my attention.

Some of the work-arounds are risible:

"Your card requires a security PIN check" - "Make a chip and PIN
transaction at another retailer and try your card again on another bus
journey."

And it does indeed rely a lot on contacting your card issuer for advice.

Queries about the fares (rather than the card not working) are directed
at 0845 330 9876 which would seem to be the Oyster Helpline.

I am concerned that they are letting themselves down by this
half-hearted approach to telling the public what it's going to be like
when it's all finished.

There is no reason at all for TfL to tell the general public the end
state of how CBCs will be handled when the launch is many months away.
They did not say how Oyster PAYG would work 1 year before it launched.
I think you should just admit to being overly inquisitive about the
project.

As an early adopter of such things, it's always good to know whether you
are buying into (with one's time as much as money) something that has a
useful future rather than a dead end. I'd much rather know about the
"gotchas" in advance, rather than having to spend hours (and mean that
literally) on the phone to the Oyster helpline sorting things out after
the event.

Or even discussing here why TfL's idea of daily capping isn't quite the
same as anyone else's (it appears to be "trust us, and while there are a
few cases where you'll be charged too much, we hope you won't notice and
that it won't put you off using the system").

Like most such new schemes, the errors always seem to be in favour of
the supplier, and sorting them out afterwards a test of
who-gives-up-first.
--
Roland Perry

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:

A genuine stop at an OIS that looks like transfer generating two
unresolved journeys causing them to receive two maximum charges and no
capping

Is that still broken?

Apparently (never experienced it myself)

It needs fixing such that if you over-run the
timeout the next touch in, if it is at a station that is a possible part
of
an OSI, closes the previous journey and opens a new one.

Unfortunately it has to close the previous touch in/out. That's why it's
non trivial to solve. But it can't be impossible

tim

In message , at 12:04:38 on Mon, 17
Dec 2012, tim..... remarked:
It needs fixing such that if you over-run the
timeout the next touch in, if it is at a station that is a possible
part of
an OSI, closes the previous journey and opens a new one.

Unfortunately it has to close the previous touch in/out. That's why
it's non trivial to solve. But it can't be impossible

The simplest suggestion, which I mentioned long ago, would be to either
add a facility to the ticket machines to "close my journey NOW", or
simpler (but more expensive) have a "close my journey NOW" validator
somewhere on the concourse.

I see no reason why the concept of OSI needs to be such a secret and you
could have dumbed-down signs saying something like:

"Finished your journey? Touch the purple validator to ensure you
are charged the correct fare".

If you wanted the general public to avoid the problem.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 12:04:38 on Mon, 17
Dec 2012, tim..... remarked:
It needs fixing such that if you over-run the timeout the next touch
in, if it is at a station that is a possible part of an OSI, closes the
previous journey and opens a new one.

Unfortunately it has to close the previous touch in/out. That's why
it's non trivial to solve. But it can't be impossible

The simplest suggestion, which I mentioned long ago, would be to either
add a facility to the ticket machines to "close my journey NOW", or
simpler (but more expensive) have a "close my journey NOW" validator
somewhere on the concourse.

I see no reason why the concept of OSI needs to be such a secret and you
could have dumbed-down signs saying something like:

"Finished your journey? Touch the purple validator to ensure you
are charged the correct fare".

If you wanted the general public to avoid the problem.

How would that work with gates, by far the majority touching out method? Any
rational person would expect that exiting by a gate would close a journey.
If you find out only months later that it didn't TfL say "stuff you".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 14:46:18
on Mon, 17 Dec 2012, remarked:
It needs fixing such that if you over-run the timeout the next touch
in, if it is at a station that is a possible part of an OSI, closes the
previous journey and opens a new one.

Unfortunately it has to close the previous touch in/out. That's why
it's non trivial to solve. But it can't be impossible

The simplest suggestion, which I mentioned long ago, would be to either
add a facility to the ticket machines to "close my journey NOW", or
simpler (but more expensive) have a "close my journey NOW" validator
somewhere on the concourse.

I see no reason why the concept of OSI needs to be such a secret and you
could have dumbed-down signs saying something like:

"Finished your journey? Touch the purple validator to ensure you
are charged the correct fare".

If you wanted the general public to avoid the problem.

How would that work with gates, by far the majority touching out method? Any
rational person would expect that exiting by a gate would close a journey.

That's what the signs are supposed to dispel, you'd touch them after the
gate, but regulars would be drip-fed the information that it only
mattered if you were likely to be re-entering the system soon after.

If you find out only months later that it didn't TfL say "stuff you".

TfL seem to be moving into a more "online" mode - for example is the
online 'statement' for Paywave the only one you'll be able to get?

[TfL must know, but they can't be bothered to tell us].

And the online site [now] flags up unresolved journeys right away.

You can also get statements emailed to you.

Yes, it's more work for the customer, but the only way to break through
the "trust me I'm a gripper" mentality.
--
Roland Perry

On 17/12/2012 07:55, Neil Williams wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

Which implies that an almost unlimited amount of historic transaction
information is sent with every wave.

Not really, the retailer's POS system can do this with nothing more than
the card number.

Bus ticket inspections could be done by having the ticket machine print out
a ticket containing the last 4 digits of each credit card used during that
journey, perhaps. Or more technologically, communicate it to the
electronic gripping irons.

My understanding is that a (very) small amount of data can be written to
an EMV-standard contactless card - i.e. the card itself can prove that
it has been validated (e.g. where and when).