On 09.09.17 19:03, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:07:44 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/09/2017 14:03, Recliner wrote:

An evaluation of the trial, published today, shows that passengers used 18
routes to go between King’s Cross/St Pancras and Waterloo, the busiest
stations on the network, with 40 per cent of people who were tracked
failing to take the two fastest routes. The data showed that even within
stations a third of passengers did not use the quickest routes between
platforms and could be wasting up to two minutes.


I'm still trying to work out 18 different ways to travel between the two
by tube.

The Gizmodo article (which is far more detailed than the newspaper
reports) includes a diagram.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/09/lon...ficial-report/

And it's not actually 18 different ways. It's 17 different ways that,
individually, have at least 0.1% of the journey traffic, plus
"others".

Mark

Does not Oyster and Contactless help to determine passenger routes and
flows? Isn't that the reason why TfL introduced it?

On 08/09/2017 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:03:37 on Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Recliner remarked:

The data showed that even within stations a third of passengers did not use the quickest routes between platforms and could be wasting up to two minutes.

Assisted, no doubt, by TfL signage which frequently points to non-optimum routes on account of fearing overloading of the optimum route.

I have often made journeys between Waterloo and King's Cross and though I mostly use their supposedly optimum route, have one time or another used at least half-a-dozen of the other routes. The reason is usually that one hears about problems on one or more lines or stations and so diverts to an alternative which is nearly as good. It may be that TfL have only analysed data when they think that services are good on their optimum route, but customers may have other information, possibly more or less accurate than that of TfL, which persuades them to divert.


--
Clive Page

In message , at 19:11:52 on Sat, 9 Sep 2017,
Graeme Wall remarked:

Shopping malls have been doing a similar thing to send you
"targetted
adverts" as you approach various shops.
How effective is this? Maybe I am unusual, but when I am shopping my
phone is normally in my pocket, so I would not see these adverts. Apart
from incoming (phone) calls, the only time I would look at my phone in a
shopping mall is when sat in a coffee shop or restaurant.

I believe it has only happened in the States so far

They had a trial at Bluewater really quite a long time ago. I can't be
bothered to look it up, but around ten years perhaps?
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Guy Gorton) wrote:

On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 13:03:37 GMT, Recliner
wrote:

From:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...rack-commuters
-via-phones-to-reduce-overcrowding-b0ss982j7?shareToken=d3406a5e9a7b95fb4dd49
507b8be3071

Commuters could be tracked using their mobile phones under plans to
tackle overcrowding and increase revenue from advertising.

Fascinating selection of routes, some of which could be accounted for
by friends/relatives travelling together with different destinations
but on the same general route.

But why do people let the world know where they are? Not using the
device is not enough, It has to be switched off to avoid tracking.
Mine is only switched on when I am willing to accept calls or need to
make a call. That only amounts to a small proportion of my waking
hours so it is more often off than on..

Gosh! How quaint! Someone who thinks a phone is about phone calls these
days. Get with it grandpa!

Apart from anything else, this is about wifi coverage which is for data
which is little used for voice calls.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Michael R N
Dolbear) wrote:

"Graham Murray" wrote in message news:8760cs9wja.fsf@einstein...

Basil Jet writes:

And there are two lines from Embankment to Waterloo.

At one time it would often have been quicker between Waterloo and
Embankment to walk over Hungerford Bridge. Though now that Hungerford
Bridge has been replaced by the Golden Jubilee Bridges, there is no
longer a direct walkway between them and Waterloo station.

The walkway, or rather its continuity, was broken long before the
Golden Jubilee Bridges were built.

Indeed. I was but a child and right miffed I was too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/09/2017 13:16, Graham Murray wrote:
Graeme Wall writes:

Shopping malls have been doing a similar thing to send you "targetted
adverts" as you approach various shops.

How effective is this? Maybe I am unusual, but when I am shopping my
phone is normally in my pocket, so I would not see these adverts. Apart
from incoming (phone) calls, the only time I would look at my phone in a
shopping mall is when sat in a coffee shop or restaurant.


I believe it has only happened in the States so far, but judging by the
number of young women one sees walking round with their smart phones
permanently in front of their faces, it has the potential to be quite
effective. Also I think the initial adverts are text messages so you
would hear an alert.


Texts would be more difficult that just tailoring already-requested
advertising to your specific location, surely? Though presumably very local
mobile (rather than wifi) transmitters would be able to harvest phone
numbers; by wifi that'd need some way of finding phone numbers from
whatever info wifi can harvest.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/09/2017 14:22, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/09/2017 10:37, Someone Somewhere wrote:


I'm not sure of the relevant legislation but presumably the only way to
avoid this is that each entity having such a system has to have a
different algorithm (or at least key) for anonymising the MAC data so
each data set remains siloised (but would the supplier of the system
still be able to join the different datasets?)


Shopping malls have been doing a similar thing to send you "targetted
adverts" as you approach various shops.


'Send you' by what means?

SMS initially.


That'd be tricky to get from a MAC address, surely? Though as per my other
reply, other mechanisms may exist.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

wrote:
On 09.09.17 19:03, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:07:44 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 08/09/2017 14:03, Recliner wrote:

An evaluation of the trial, published today, shows that passengers used 18
routes to go between King’s Cross/St Pancras and Waterloo, the busiest
stations on the network, with 40 per cent of people who were tracked
failing to take the two fastest routes. The data showed that even within
stations a third of passengers did not use the quickest routes between
platforms and could be wasting up to two minutes.


I'm still trying to work out 18 different ways to travel between the two
by tube.

The Gizmodo article (which is far more detailed than the newspaper
reports) includes a diagram.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/09/lon...ficial-report/

And it's not actually 18 different ways. It's 17 different ways that,
individually, have at least 0.1% of the journey traffic, plus
"others".

Mark

Does not Oyster and Contactless help to determine passenger routes and
flows? Isn't that the reason why TfL introduced it?


Only at point of entry and exit; not the route taken between them.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message , at 19:13:22 on Sat, 9 Sep 2017,
" remarked:

Does not Oyster and Contactless help to determine passenger routes and
flows? Isn't that the reason why TfL introduced it?

It gives the end points, but rarely the route between.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:49:16
on Sat, 9 Sep 2017, remarked:

Apart from anything else, this is about wifi coverage which is for data
which is little used for voice calls.

Never used Whats App voice calls, grandad?
--
Roland Perry