Re: Another example of lack of thought in MetCard

["Mike Alexander" <malex@bigfoot.com>]

Interesting that the 10 x short trip ticket will allow you to do exactly
that. But it would get a bit complicated with a 2-hour (i.e. time-based)
ticket. How would you then validate it twice on the next vehicle, if you had
two people travelling?

I reckon it would be thoroughly confusing if it worked as you wanted.
Imagine:

1) Get on first vehicle and validate once. A single 2-hour ticket is
"activated".
2) Validate a second time for the second person. A second 2-hour ticket is
"activated".
3) Get off the vehicle and catch another vehicle within the 2 hours.
Validate the ticket for the first person. It has to then realise that there
is at least one 2-hour ticket still valid, and not "activate" a 3rd 2-hour
ticket. But what you wanted is for every validation to activate a new 2-hour
ticket.
4) Validate the ticket for the second person. Once again, it has to not
"activate" a new 2-hour ticket.

While it could be made to work, it would be extremely dependent on you
validating exactly in sequence at every trip, and the validator never
rejecting the ticket (would you re-validate to try again, and risk a new
ticket being deducted).

I reckon the way it works now is the only feasible method for a time based
ticket. Distance-based is a different story, and this is why the short-trip
x 10 works in the way you describe.

Best regards,

Mike Alexander
(malex @ bigfoot com)


"Paul Edwards" <p.edwards@its.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
p.edwards-ya023580001503010917560001@news.unimelb.edu.au">news:p.edwards-ya023580001503010917560001@news.unimelb.edu.au...
> Question: What happens when one has a 10*2hr trip ticket, and two of you
> are travelling on the tram, and you want to validate the ticket twice (ie
> pay for two fares)?
>
> Answer: PASSBACK flashes up on the validator, and only one fare gets
> printed on the ticket.
>
> I can understand the idea of passback coming up on single use tickets, but
> on those multiple tickets, why, why WHY?
>
> Paul