Re: Another example of lack of thought in MetCard

[p.edwards@its.unimelb.edu.au (Paul Edwards)]

In article <3aaff48a@news.microsoft.com>, "Mike Alexander" <malex @ bigfoot
com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, I think that you're right at that. FWIW, we ended up saying "Sod it"
(well, we used another, more naughty, word actually), and figured that we'd
argue the toss if a ticket inspector came along.

But I feel that I should point out that this would not have been an issue
under the old conductor system...

How do other systems in Aus/internationally handle this kind of thing?

Cheers,
PE