Scotrail Tap and Pay

[Tweed]

I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

The name is a bit unfortunate as Tap to a lot of train users means tap on a
reader somewhere. This is not required, well is if there is a gate line to
open, but that’s not part of the charging system.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tweed
I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.
The name is a bit unfortunate as Tap to a lot of train users means tap on a
reader somewhere. This is not required, well is if there is a gate line to
open, but that’s not part of the charging system.

Language is confusing, I'm often told to "tap my card", but that does
nothing useful (unlike apps which want you to "tap here", which is
indeed a finger on the phone itself).

What they really want you to do, is tap the card *on* a reader (although
hovering above is usually sufficient, physical contact not necessary).

Or even tap your finger on the phone screen, then tap the phone on a
reader.

[Ken]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed
I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.
The name is a bit unfortunate as Tap to a lot of train users means tap on a
reader somewhere. This is not required, well is if there is a gate line to
open, but that’s not part of the charging system.

Language is confusing, I'm often told to "tap my card", but that does
nothing useful (unlike apps which want you to "tap here", which is
indeed a finger on the phone itself).
What they really want you to do, is tap the card *on* a reader (although
hovering above is usually sufficient, physical contact not necessary).
Or even tap your finger on the phone screen, then tap the phone on a
reader.

West Midlands Railway has signs at every station suggesting you 'tap'
a QR code.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed
I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.
The name is a bit unfortunate as Tap to a lot of train users means tap on a
reader somewhere. This is not required, well is if there is a gate line to
open, but that’s not part of the charging system.

Language is confusing, I'm often told to "tap my card", but that does
nothing useful (unlike apps which want you to "tap here", which is
indeed a finger on the phone itself).
What they really want you to do, is tap the card *on* a reader (although
hovering above is usually sufficient, physical contact not necessary).
Or even tap your finger on the phone screen, then tap the phone on a
reader.

West Midlands Railway has signs at every station suggesting you 'tap'
a QR code.

Madness, isn't it! The only possible explanation is this terminology is
borrowed from an App where tapping the QR code with a finger makes it
bigger (so someone else can scan it off your screen).

<Thread convergence> Which is what the Senior Railcard App has.

[Tweed]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tweed
I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.
The name is a bit unfortunate as Tap to a lot of train users means tap on a
reader somewhere. This is not required, well is if there is a gate line to
open, but that’s not part of the charging system.

Language is confusing, I'm often told to "tap my card", but that does
nothing useful (unlike apps which want you to "tap here", which is
indeed a finger on the phone itself).
What they really want you to do, is tap the card *on* a reader (although
hovering above is usually sufficient, physical contact not necessary).
Or even tap your finger on the phone screen, then tap the phone on a
reader.

West Midlands Railway has signs at every station suggesting you 'tap'
a QR code.

Madness, isn't it! The only possible explanation is this terminology is
borrowed from an App where tapping the QR code with a finger makes it
bigger (so someone else can scan it off your screen).
<Thread convergence> Which is what the Senior Railcard App has.

I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

[Scott]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:47:32 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ken

Post by Roland Perry

I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.
The name is a bit unfortunate as Tap to a lot of train users means tap on a
reader somewhere. This is not required, well is if there is a gate line to
open, but that’s not part of the charging system.

Language is confusing, I'm often told to "tap my card", but that does
nothing useful (unlike apps which want you to "tap here", which is
indeed a finger on the phone itself).
What they really want you to do, is tap the card *on* a reader (although
hovering above is usually sufficient, physical contact not necessary).
Or even tap your finger on the phone screen, then tap the phone on a
reader.

West Midlands Railway has signs at every station suggesting you 'tap'
a QR code.

Madness, isn't it! The only possible explanation is this terminology is
borrowed from an App where tapping the QR code with a finger makes it
bigger (so someone else can scan it off your screen).
<Thread convergence> Which is what the Senior Railcard App has.

I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.

As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

[1] Although some people have a phonebell as a ringtone.

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

GH

[Roland Perry]

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

And not many dedicated cameras have used film this century.

[Bevan Price]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech  but doesn’t actually use Film.

And not many dedicated cameras have used film this century.

Probably more than you might think. Just like "music" has seen a revival
of vinyl records, photography retains a minority market for colour slide
film - at around £20-30 per 35mm 36 exposure film, plus processing...

[Recliner]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech  but doesn’t actually use Film.

And not many dedicated cameras have used film this century.

Probably more than you might think. Just like "music" has seen a revival
of vinyl records, photography retains a minority market for colour slide
film - at around £20-30 per 35mm 36 exposure film, plus processing...

Probably less than 0.01% of still camera images are still shot on film. I
meet them occasionally, and they never have a good reason for doing so,
other than never having got round to converting.

But something like 5% of movies are still shot on film, then scanned.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet
something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech  but doesn’t actually use Film.

And not many dedicated cameras have used film this century.

Probably more than you might think. Just like "music" has seen a
revival of vinyl records, photography retains a minority market for
colour slide film - at around £20-30 per 35mm 36 exposure film, plus
processing...

Like I said "not many".

There are literally billions of digital cameras out there. I have about
a dozen film cameras in my retro collection, with the most recent a
Kodak Advantix F350 launched in 2000 (plus film dated Nov 2011).

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need something
that means to press your finger on the screen and something different to
mean presenting a device’s QR code to a reader and yet something else to
mean presenting a device to an NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all
three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech  but doesn’t actually use Film.

And not many dedicated cameras have used film this century.

Probably more than you might think. Just like "music" has seen a revival
of vinyl records, photography retains a minority market for colour slide
film - at around £20-30 per 35mm 36 exposure film, plus processing...

Not a bad price, I seem to remember I was paying around £25 for
Ektachrome, plus processing, around 20 years ago.

[Clank]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Marland

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Scott

Post by Tweed
I think there’s a general shortage of suitable verbs. We need
something that means to press your finger on the screen and
something different to mean presenting a device’s QR code to a
reader and yet something else to mean presenting a device to an
NFC reader. Tap seems to be in use for all three.

What would be your recommended verb for dialling on a phone with no
dial?

Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and
are no longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of
a call.

And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image
as filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far
beyond a communication device for speech  but doesn’t actually use
Film.

And not many dedicated cameras have used film this century.

Probably more than you might think. Just like "music" has seen a
revival of vinyl records, photography retains a minority market for
colour slide film - at around £20-30 per 35mm 36 exposure film, plus
processing...

Not a bad price, I seem to remember I was paying around £25 for
Ektachrome, plus processing, around 20 years ago.

Christ, I'm sure I used to pay a lot less, but now I don't want to think
how long ago. It was very much worthwhile to buy bulk rolls and wind the
spools yourself though...

Sadly, most of the slide films I loved are long gone. Fuji still make
Provia and Velvia (which has a fan club that's inexplicable to me...), and
Kodak still make plain-ol' Ektachrome, but my favourite films of all time
- Ektachrome E100VS and E100G - are sadly long gone. I do consider myself
lucky to have a few boxes of slides I shot on Kodachrome as well - sent
all the way to Kansas to be developed on the world's last Kodachrome
processing line - and a few prints I made on Ilfochrome reversal paper
(*nothing* compares), both definitely never to return again.


It's worth learning to develop E6 yourself, incidentally. It's a little
bit more involved than B&W primarily because of temperature control (you
need to keep the temperature exact to ensure everything develops at the
same rate and you don't get colour shifts, unlike B&W where you can just
change the time to match the temperature of your developer,) but nothing
that's not achievable with a tub of water and an aquarium heater.

Then you just need the chemistry, which is available in kits of everything
you need:

https://www.f64.ro/jobo-e-6-color-positive-chemistry-kit-2-5l-/p

That works out about 4eur/roll for processing.

[JMB99]

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

[Roland Perry]

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

Sam

[Roland Perry]

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use
is properly called the "footway" </pedant>

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Freedom!!!!!

Us pendants gotta hang together.

Sam

[Nobody]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Freedom!!!!!
Us pendants gotta hang together.

Us? We pedants have to do whatever.

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Freedom!!!!!
Us pendants gotta hang together.

Us? We pedants have to do whatever.

[Hard stare over glasses] There wasn’t a typo in that sentence.

Sam

[Nobody]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Freedom!!!!!
Us pendants gotta hang together.

Us? We pedants have to do whatever.

[Hard stare over glasses] There wasn’t a typo in that sentence.
Sam

Er, "Us pedants..." as subject in your sentence.

[Tweed]

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Freedom!!!!!
Us pendants gotta hang together.

Us? We pedants have to do whatever.

[Hard stare over glasses] There wasn’t a typo in that sentence.
Sam

Er, "Us pedants..." as subject in your sentence.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/When-to-Use-We-and-Us-grammar-usage

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Freedom!!!!!
Us pendants gotta hang together.

Us? We pedants have to do whatever.

[Hard stare over glasses] There wasn’t a typo in that sentence.
Sam

Er, "Us pedants..." as subject in your sentence.

Wooosh!!!

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:17:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nobody
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 12:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Freedom!!!!!
Us pendants gotta hang together.

Us? We pedants have to do whatever.

[Hard stare over glasses] There wasn’t a typo in that sentence.
Sam

Er, "Us pedants..." as subject in your sentence.

Wooosh!!!

Thank you for doing that for me!

Sam

[M***@DastardlyHQ.org]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:26:21 +0000

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Ignore him, talking drivel is one of his hobbies. Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

[Roland Perry]

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:26:21 +0000

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Ignore him, talking drivel is one of his hobbies. Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

Which proves it's the correct term.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:26:21 +0000

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Ignore him, talking drivel is one of his hobbies. Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

Which proves it's the correct term.

Yes, one is a structural term, the other (in a highway/road context)
is a type of right of way. A footway remains a footway whether or not
at any point it is pavement.
In England and Wales it is simply "a way comprised in a highway which
also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a
right of way on foot only" or in Scotland a road with a similar
description.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:26:21 +0000

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Ignore him, talking drivel is one of his hobbies. Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

Which proves it's the correct term.

Yes, one is a structural term, the other (in a highway/road context)
is a type of right of way. A footway remains a footway whether or not
at any point it is pavement.

I think you mean "paved".

Post by Charles Ellson
In England and Wales it is simply "a way comprised in a highway which
also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a
right of way on foot only" or in Scotland a road with a similar
description.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:26:21 +0000

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Ignore him, talking drivel is one of his hobbies. Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

Which proves it's the correct term.

Yes, one is a structural term, the other (in a highway/road context)
is a type of right of way. A footway remains a footway whether or not
at any point it is pavement.

I think you mean "paved".

Which would make it pavement.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson
In England and Wales it is simply "a way comprised in a highway which
also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a
right of way on foot only" or in Scotland a road with a similar
description.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

Which proves it's the correct term.

Yes, one is a structural term, the other (in a highway/road context)
is a type of right of way. A footway remains a footway whether or not
at any point it is pavement.

I think you mean "paved".

Which would make it pavement.

The carriageway is also paved, so let's try not to create even more
confusion.

[Tweed]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

Which proves it's the correct term.

Yes, one is a structural term, the other (in a highway/road context)
is a type of right of way. A footway remains a footway whether or not
at any point it is pavement.

I think you mean "paved".

Which would make it pavement.

The carriageway is also paved, so let's try not to create even more
confusion.

What words mean is generally how they are used in common use. Some words
have a tighter technical definition, eg in engineering, but that doesn’t
negate a wider common use. Meanings also vary by geographic location.
Trying to use a technical definition to argue a common use definition is
incorrect is pointless.

See also the futile train/railway station argument.

[Marland]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry

Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:26:21 +0000

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Ignore him, talking drivel is one of his hobbies. Its almost never called a
footway in england either. The only time I've seen it is in the occasional
council warning or closure notice near some hole.

Which proves it's the correct term.

Yes, one is a structural term, the other (in a highway/road context)
is a type of right of way. A footway remains a footway whether or not
at any point it is pavement.

I think you mean "paved".

Which would make it pavement.

Or even Paved Meant.

GH

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

A section-specific use which encompasses more than one thing.
Otherwise -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/54/section/151
generally applies.

"For the purpose of this Act, where over a road the public right of
passage referred to in the definition of “road” in subsection (1)
above—

(a)is by foot only, the road is—

(i)where it is associated with a carriageway, a “footway”; and

(ii)where it is not so associated, a “footpath”;"

[Nick Finnigan]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

A section-specific use which encompasses more than one thing.
Otherwise -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/54/section/151
generally applies.
"For the purpose of this Act, where over a road the public right of
passage referred to in the definition of “road” in subsection (1)
above—
(a)is by foot only, the road is—
(i)where it is associated with a carriageway, a “footway”; and
(ii)where it is not so associated, a “footpath”;"

I was querying whether Scots should refer to their carriageways as
pavements, not whether some pavements in Scotland may be called footways.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Nick Finnigan

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Roland Perry
In the USA they drive on the Parkway, and park on the driveway.

They drive on the pavement, too.

<pedant> So do we, because the thing at the side which pedestrians use is
properly called the "footway" </pedant>

What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

A section-specific use which encompasses more than one thing.
Otherwise -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/54/section/151
generally applies.
"For the purpose of this Act, where over a road the public right of
passage referred to in the definition of “road” in subsection (1)
above—
(a)is by foot only, the road is—
(i)where it is associated with a carriageway, a “footway”; and
(ii)where it is not so associated, a “footpath”;"

I was querying whether Scots should refer to their carriageways as
pavements, not whether some pavements in Scotland may be called footways.

The engineers might call it pavement but the users would probably call
it the road.

[JMB99]

 What do you mean "we", English man?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/section/50/enacted

Not been very effective, I see just as many vehicles parked (or at least
stopped) on the pavement. Quite often utilities and councils with
vehicles that will do a lot more damage than most small cars.

The Edinburgh government love passing laws that are not enforced. I
remember looking up the anti-smoking legislation when it was introduced.
It was very rare to see any company vehicle that complied and even
rarer now.

[Marland]

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

Devils advocate mode……. The yanks have it right then , the man on the
throttle is called an engineer not an engine driver.

GH

[Charles Ellson]

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

Devils advocate mode……. The yanks have it right then , the man on the
throttle is called an engineer not an engine driver.

He/she is still the person driving it.

[Bevan Price]

Post by Marland

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

Devils advocate mode……. The yanks have it right then , the man on the
throttle is called an engineer not an engine driver.
GH

Do the Yanks get anything right ?
Some of the leaders they choose come across as ?!!***! S***

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech  but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

Devils advocate mode…….     The yanks have it right then , the man on the
throttle is called an engineer not an engine driver.
GH

Do the Yanks get anything right ?
Some of the leaders they choose come across as ?!!***!  S***

After Boris Johnson and the lettuce, we have no room to talk!

[JMB99]

Post by Graeme Wall
After Boris Johnson and the lettuce, we have no room to talk!

And the current lot?

Milliband?

Lammy?

Rachel from Accounts?

etc etc

[JMB99]

Post by Bevan Price
Do the Yanks get anything right ?
Some of the leaders they choose come across as ?!!***!  S***

Hard to criticise them when you look at the current Cabinet.

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Marland

Post by JMB99

Post by Marland
And a reasonable number of people refer to capturing a moving image as
filming it, on a device they call a phone which has developed far beyond a
communication device for speech but doesn’t actually use Film.

Presumably you 'drive' your car but do not have any horses pulling it?

Devils advocate mode……. The yanks have it right then , the man on the
throttle is called an engineer not an engine driver.
GH

Do the Yanks get anything right ?
Some of the leaders they choose come across as ?!!***! S***

The basic idea is that every four years Americans get to choose which of
two old white millionaires is going to lead them. There have been
alternatives, but mostly have been only recently.

Sam,

[JMB99]

Post by Roland Perry
Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.

But what would the pedants moan about if they did not use those words?

[Roland Perry]

Post by JMB99

Post by Roland Perry
Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and
are no longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of
a call.

But what would the pedants moan about if they did not use those words?

Linguists, perhaps; while pedants can talk about the 90% the language
which hasn't been decimated.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JMB99

Post by Roland Perry
Phones are replete with anachronisms, but people seem to cope.
As well as not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and
are no longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of
a call.

But what would the pedants moan about if they did not use those words?

Linguists, perhaps; while pedants can talk about the 90% the language
which hasn't been decimated.

:-)

[Sam Wilson]

As well as [phones] not having dials (usually), they rarely "ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.
[1] Although some people have a phonebell as a ringtone.

<https://xkcd.com/479/>

Sam

[Roland Perry]

Post by Sam Wilson

As well as [phones] not having dials (usually), they rarely
"ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.
[1] Although some people have a phonebell as a ringtone.

<https://xkcd.com/479/>

Mine has one of the original "ringtones" - <https://www.zedge.net/find/r
ingtones/crazy%20frog%20axel%20f>.

I can always tell in a room full of phones, that it's mine which needs
answering (or not).

[JMB99]

Post by Roland Perry
I can always tell in a room full of phones, that it's mine which needs
answering (or not).

I used to have the 'The Lincolnshire Poacher' with a clip of a numbers
station as my ringtone. Very definitely no confusion.

And QEII hooter for text messages.

[Coffee]

Post by JMB99

Post by Roland Perry
I can always tell in a room full of phones, that it's mine which needs
answering (or not).

I used to have the 'The Lincolnshire Poacher' with a clip of a numbers
station as my ringtone.  Very definitely no confusion.
And QEII hooter for text messages.

I use 1KHz morse code which can be heard throughout a railway carriage.

I like your ring tone very much!

[Marland]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Sam Wilson

As well as [phones] not having dials (usually), they rarely
"ring"[1], and are no
longer supplied with what's needed to "hang up" at the end of a call.
[1] Although some people have a phonebell as a ringtone.

<https://xkcd.com/479/>

Mine has one of the original "ringtones" - <https://www.zedge.net/find/r
ingtones/crazy%20frog%20axel%20f>.
I can always tell in a room full of phones, that it's mine which needs
answering (or not).

Used to have the Sound of a Carter Hand Siren as a ringtone, removed it
after an unfortunate occasion when someone nearby thought it was a genuine
alarm for something but they didn’t know what and got in a bit of a tizzy.

GH

[Mike Humphrey]

Post by Roland Perry
Madness, isn't it! The only possible explanation is this terminology is
borrowed from an App where tapping the QR code with a finger makes it
bigger (so someone else can scan it off your screen).

No, it's just English being ambiguous as usual. The object of the verb
"tap" can either be the thing you tap on or thing you tap with. Think
about "tapping your feet" vs "tapping the screen".

Though I agree that "tap" isn't really the right word for using a QR code.
It's not about making contact (or near-contact) with the reader (as with a
bank card), it's about making it visible. "Scan" or "show" would be a
better choice.

Mike

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Mike Humphrey

Post by Roland Perry
Madness, isn't it! The only possible explanation is this terminology is
borrowed from an App where tapping the QR code with a finger makes it
bigger (so someone else can scan it off your screen).

No, it's just English being ambiguous as usual. The object of the verb
"tap" can either be the thing you tap on or thing you tap with. Think
about "tapping your feet" vs "tapping the screen".

Or tapping into something to extract its contents - a rubber or maple tree,
a water pipe, or a stream of data, for instance.

Post by Mike Humphrey
Though I agree that "tap" isn't really the right word for using a QR code.
It's not about making contact (or near-contact) with the reader (as with a
bank card), it's about making it visible. "Scan" or "show" would be a
better choice.

Indeed.

Sam

[Scott]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

I find this instruction ambiguous. It could equally mean you should
not 'tap' if you are changing trains at the same station.

The name is a bit unfortunate as Tap to a lot of train users means tap on a
reader somewhere. This is not required, well is if there is a gate line to
open, but that’s not part of the charging system.

[Tweed]

Post by Scott
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

I find this instruction ambiguous. It could equally mean you should
not 'tap' if you are changing trains at the same station.

I’m not sure I follow your point here.

It seems to me to be a relatively simple system for trips within the
commuter belt. Obviously with the Byzantine fares system there will be
occasions where another ticketing method is better, but for its intended
purpose it seems to work well. It’s not so very different to TfL’s
contactless system, but with two differences - it allows for most rail
cards (yes I know Oyster does) and provides a bar code ticket for
inspection. Perhaps Scotrail feels that just presenting a credit card to an
inspector is too much of a revenue risk. The barcode ticket does have the
start station and start date/time encoded within it.

[Recliner]

Post by Tweed

Post by Scott
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

I find this instruction ambiguous. It could equally mean you should
not 'tap' if you are changing trains at the same station.

I’m not sure I follow your point here.
It seems to me to be a relatively simple system for trips within the
commuter belt. Obviously with the Byzantine fares system there will be
occasions where another ticketing method is better, but for its intended
purpose it seems to work well. It’s not so very different to TfL’s
contactless system, but with two differences - it allows for most rail
cards (yes I know Oyster does) and provides a bar code ticket for
inspection. Perhaps Scotrail feels that just presenting a credit card to an
inspector is too much of a revenue risk. The barcode ticket does have the
start station and start date/time encoded within it.

Does anyone know if this is a newly-invented system, or adapted from a
working system somewhere else? Unlike TfW and TfGM’s systems, it’s
obviously not based on London’s Cubic technology.

[Tweed]

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Scott
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I’ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

I find this instruction ambiguous. It could equally mean you should
not 'tap' if you are changing trains at the same station.

I’m not sure I follow your point here.
It seems to me to be a relatively simple system for trips within the
commuter belt. Obviously with the Byzantine fares system there will be
occasions where another ticketing method is better, but for its intended
purpose it seems to work well. It’s not so very different to TfL’s
contactless system, but with two differences - it allows for most rail
cards (yes I know Oyster does) and provides a bar code ticket for
inspection. Perhaps Scotrail feels that just presenting a credit card to an
inspector is too much of a revenue risk. The barcode ticket does have the
start station and start date/time encoded within it.

Does anyone know if this is a newly-invented system, or adapted from a
working system somewhere else? Unlike TfW and TfGM’s systems, it’s
obviously not based on London’s Cubic technology.

Not sure, but this might help

https://tracsis.com/news/scotrail-expands-availability-of-tap-pay-smart-ticketing-app

The product is called Hopsta and the company behind it is Tracsis.

[Recliner]

Post by Tweed

Post by Recliner

Post by Tweed

Post by Scott
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I?ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

I find this instruction ambiguous. It could equally mean you should
not 'tap' if you are changing trains at the same station.

I’m not sure I follow your point here.
It seems to me to be a relatively simple system for trips within the
commuter belt. Obviously with the Byzantine fares system there will be
occasions where another ticketing method is better, but for its intended
purpose it seems to work well. It’s not so very different to TfL’s
contactless system, but with two differences - it allows for most rail
cards (yes I know Oyster does) and provides a bar code ticket for
inspection. Perhaps Scotrail feels that just presenting a credit card to an
inspector is too much of a revenue risk. The barcode ticket does have the
start station and start date/time encoded within it.

Does anyone know if this is a newly-invented system, or adapted from a
working system somewhere else? Unlike TfW and TfGM’s systems, it’s
obviously not based on London’s Cubic technology.

Not sure, but this might help
https://tracsis.com/news/scotrail-expands-availability-of-tap-pay-smart-ticketing-app
The product is called Hopsta and the company behind it is Tracsis.

Thanks, I see it's actually a British company (a 2004 spin-off from Leeds University), and Hopsta seems to have started
out as a bus ticketing app in 2018:

https://newsroom.go-ahead.com/news/go-ahead-introduces-ground-breaking-new-tap-free-bus-ticket-system

[Scott]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Scott
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I?ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

I find this instruction ambiguous. It could equally mean you should
not 'tap' if you are changing trains at the same station.

I’m not sure I follow your point here.

All I am saying is that the instruction is not to tap until you have
left the station. If you are changing trains, by definition you do not
leave the station. Ergo, you do not tap when changing trains (only
when ending your journey).

[Tweed]

Post by Scott
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Scott
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I?ve used Tap and Pay today and it seems to work well. Open the app at or
near the station and press start journey. This generates an on screen Aztec
style bar code. This was scanned ok at a revenue block entering the station
(which has no barriers) and opened barriers at the destination station.
Once through those barriers you press end journey. It then warns you that
the barcode ticket will vanish, so make sure you have left the station - I
think that simply means make sure you have been through any ticket gates
and possible revenue blocks. Did the same coming back. It now shows a
pending off peak day return that will be charged tomorrow.

I find this instruction ambiguous. It could equally mean you should
not 'tap' if you are changing trains at the same station.

I’m not sure I follow your point here.

All I am saying is that the instruction is not to tap until you have
left the station. If you are changing trains, by definition you do not
leave the station. Ergo, you do not tap when changing trains (only
when ending your journey).

I’m not sure I see the conflict. For clarity, you don’t tap when changing
trains.