In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
12:03:34 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, David Cantrell
remarked:
The result - I was charged for entering and exiting at Waterloo, and
then charged again for my actual journey.
It's not an error, the system is operating as programmed. (You're a
programmer, no? Technology, including Oyster, doesn't just do it's own
random thing.)

Operating as programmed isn't the same as operating without error. If it
were then there would be no such thing as a bug.

Nor is operating as *specified* the same as operating without error. If
it were then specifications would never change.

The Oyster website says that they deliberately make this charge "to
avoid fare evasion". But I'm really struggling to think of a way of
evading fares that would involve touching in, and then touching out less
than ten minutes later at the same station. I might just about be able
to make a round trip from Waterloo to Vauxhall and back again in ten
minutes with a great deal of luck, but it's fairly obvious that the
potential costs of people avoiding that fare are far less than the
excess income generated.

It is clear to me that the specification is faulty in this case.

The failure mechanism would appear to be someone touching in, and
then touching out on a gate but failing to go through the gate. So
they are still "airside", and capable of catching a train somewhere.

This is such a fundamental fraud vector that whoever designed the
system to allow it (while penalising innocent passengers whose
platform was changed at the last minute) should be hung out to dry.

What do you suggest?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 07:18:41
on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, remarked:
It's not an error, the system is operating as programmed. (You're a
programmer, no? Technology, including Oyster, doesn't just do it's own
random thing.)

Operating as programmed isn't the same as operating without error. If it
were then there would be no such thing as a bug.

Nor is operating as *specified* the same as operating without error. If
it were then specifications would never change.

The Oyster website says that they deliberately make this charge "to
avoid fare evasion". But I'm really struggling to think of a way of
evading fares that would involve touching in, and then touching out less
than ten minutes later at the same station. I might just about be able
to make a round trip from Waterloo to Vauxhall and back again in ten
minutes with a great deal of luck, but it's fairly obvious that the
potential costs of people avoiding that fare are far less than the
excess income generated.

It is clear to me that the specification is faulty in this case.

The failure mechanism would appear to be someone touching in, and
then touching out on a gate but failing to go through the gate. So
they are still "airside", and capable of catching a train somewhere.

This is such a fundamental fraud vector that whoever designed the
system to allow it (while penalising innocent passengers whose
platform was changed at the last minute) should be hung out to dry.

What do you suggest?

Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Steve Lewis) wrote:

Doesn't Waterloo have an "airside" subway, allowing passengers to
change platform without having to touch out and back in? Admittedly
the passenger information down there isn't as good as on the main
concourse. Or, rather than touching out, just ask the barrier staff
to let you out and back in - offer them your Oyster card to check
with a handheld scanner, or at that point they may well just trust
you as the easiest option. An automated system like Oyster is going
to have to involve some assumptions in the programming, with a fine
balancing act between trust and mistrust.

Isn't open in peak hours only?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
07:18:41 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, remarked:
This is such a fundamental fraud vector that whoever designed the
system to allow it (while penalising innocent passengers whose
platform was changed at the last minute) should be hung out to dry.

What do you suggest?

Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform.

Which will be even less well understood than pink validators?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:32:50 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:18:41
on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, remarked:
What do you suggest?

Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform.

Nah, there's a far more simple solution - if no one goes through the gates
on a touch out (infra red beam not triggered) before they close THEN you
deduct a penalty fare otherwise you refund.

--
Spud

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:39:18 -0600,
wrote:

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
07:18:41 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, remarked:
This is such a fundamental fraud vector that whoever designed the
system to allow it (while penalising innocent passengers whose
platform was changed at the last minute) should be hung out to dry.

What do you suggest?

Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform.

Which will be even less well understood than pink validators?

"If you enter and exit at the same station without travelling, you
must touch your card at a ticket machine or validator to avoid beeing
charged a (penalty) fare."

Easy to understand.

--
jhk

On 13/02/2015 6:23 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

"If you touch in on a yellow card reader to make a journey and
then decide you don't want to make it or you can't because of
service disruption and touch out again to exit your Oyster card
will be charged. We apply charges to discourage fare evasion.
However, you may be able to get a refund if this happens."

The burden here is far too much on the innocent traveller.

The alternative is for the gateline assistant to let everyone out
*without* touching out, and then go to the Ticket Office to get the
touch *in* cancelled...except that's not an option at Waterloo because
SWT don't "do" Oyster at Ticket Offices, and even if they did, you'd
have missed half a dozen trains by the time you got to the front of the
queue. (Possibly a slight exaggeration).

A Ticket Office is unable to resolve a "double touch" where an OSI is
involved, as they can only cancel the last *exit* touch. So if you were
travelling Piccadilly Circus - Waterloo (LU) - Waterloo (NR) -
Wimbledon and such a situation occurred, the exit touch at Waterloo (NR)
would have to be cancelled, and then you'd have to go back down to the
Underground station and touch *out* again to close the journey
properly...assuming you were still within the maximum journey time.

Or you just wait 'til the following day and go to the Oyster website
(assuming your card is registered) or phone the Helpdesk and they'll
sort it out for you with significantly less faffing around...

Cheers,

Barry

In message , at 22:43:23 on Fri, 13
Feb 2015, Barry Salter remarked:
On 13/02/2015 6:23 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

"If you touch in on a yellow card reader to make a journey and
then decide you don't want to make it or you can't because of
service disruption and touch out again to exit your Oyster card
will be charged. We apply charges to discourage fare evasion.
However, you may be able to get a refund if this happens."

The burden here is far too much on the innocent traveller.

The alternative is for the gateline assistant to let everyone out
*without* touching out, and then go to the Ticket Office to get the
touch *in* cancelled...except that's not an option at Waterloo because
SWT don't "do" Oyster at Ticket Offices,

What if the traveller was using Contactless - can the SWT ticket offices
deal with hiccups then?

and even if they did, you'd have missed half a dozen trains by the time
you got to the front of the queue. (Possibly a slight exaggeration).

A Ticket Office is unable to resolve a "double touch" where an OSI is
involved, as they can only cancel the last *exit* touch. So if you were
travelling Piccadilly Circus - Waterloo (LU) - Waterloo (NR) -
Wimbledon and such a situation occurred, the exit touch at Waterloo
(NR) would have to be cancelled, and then you'd have to go back down to
the Underground station and touch *out* again to close the journey
properly...

Would that require you to find someone to let you back airside in order
to come back with a touch-out? I'd be reluctant to touch-in, in case it
triggered yet another layer of problems.

assuming you were still within the maximum journey time.

Given that the exercise started when SWT cancelled a train, would Delay
Repay allow you to add the time queuing at the ticket office to the
overall journey delay?

Or you just wait 'til the following day and go to the Oyster website
(assuming your card is registered) or phone the Helpdesk and they'll
sort it out for you with significantly less faffing around...

What a performance! Just because SWT was a driver short.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:39:18
on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, remarked:
This is such a fundamental fraud vector that whoever designed the
system to allow it (while penalising innocent passengers whose
platform was changed at the last minute) should be hung out to dry.

What do you suggest?

Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform.

Which will be even less well understood than pink validators?

As they would be somewhat like a "reset button" it should be easier to
explain their function to passengers.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:38:53 on Fri, 13 Feb
2015, d remarked:
What do you suggest?

Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform.

Nah, there's a far more simple solution - if no one goes through the gates
on a touch out (infra red beam not triggered) before they close THEN you
deduct a penalty fare otherwise you refund.

The fare dodgers could just wave an umbrella/briefcase through the beam
to get it to falsely register their departure.
--
Roland Perry