Re: Another example of lack of thought in MetCard

["Ted Gay" <tedgay@bigpond.com>]

"Paul Edwards" <p.edwards@its.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
p.edwards-ya023580001503011148300001@news.unimelb.edu.au">news:p.edwards-ya023580001503011148300001@news.unimelb.edu.au...
> 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

On Sydney's STA system it would not be a problem BUT the system is distance
based.

Ted