Talk:Compass card (British Columbia)

Issues and controversies
The early patent applications for the Smart card were filed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A Smart card was used for pay telephone payments in 1983. Subsequently the technology has been widely used in Europe and the USA for various purposes. The the ploy of premature tap out to evade part of a fare would have been obvious to the manufacturer and to anyone making a serious plan of implementation in a transit system. The sentence "During system testing in September 2013, testers found a loophole that would allow riders to travel two or three zones while paying for a single zone." is peculiar. Why would people implementing the system have ignored such an obvious flaw or vulnerability? If someone can excavate details to clarify the story, a revision would be appropriate. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That language does downplay the seriousness of the oversight involved in this "loophole" being implemented. There would also be no way, as far as I know, of a transit fare checker knowing whether someone has tapped-out or not, unless they carry around another smart card reader with a data connection. I believe there is serious incompetence and corruption here and it needs more attention. Thanks for your contribution to the page. --OKNoah (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits at 2016-07-18T14:31:00‎
Hello to anyone interested, please open the history page and compare revisions 2016-07-14T20:01:57‎ and 2016-07-18T14:31:00‎. Some of the edits are improvements in accordance with recent developments. Others are deletions of paragraphs and entire sections. The heading "Issues and controversies" was changed to "Multi-Zone". The sections "Time frame and costs" and "Availability and functionality" were deleted with only the paragraph about the tap-out loophole preserved in the Multi-Zone section. The brief annotation in the history page, "Turned past tense to current. Added current media coverage (articles to source)." is unrealistic. In my view, the deletions were excessive. I prefer to see such large deletions discussed here before execution. Alternatively they can be performed in smaller increments and annotated properly. Any consensus? How should this be addressed? Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You should have sent a text to him at that time, so it could have been addressed earlier. I sent a message to him on PST 15:35 Sept 2, 2016. As to whether you want to do anything now, that's up to you. You cn either copy paste the old Issues and controversies section, or do a blanket revert and then apply wording/grammar fix afterwards, as the Issues and Controversies is quite important; I do not oppose either way. George Leung (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for replying.  I've never had to contend which such destructive editing before.  I checked this page periodically for a few weeks and took the absence of a response to indicate that the edits were tolerable.  I see your good repairs.  Thanks,  ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone object to removal of the update tag at the top of the article. If there is no objection within a week, I'll aim to remove it.  PeterEasthope (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)