Talk:Oyster card/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Oyster card acts as an aerial while the reader acts as a receiver" : receiver only?

Does the reader act as receiver only? Doesn't it act as both transmitter and receiver, transmitting a radio signal constantly?Haircut3603 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oyster Card and Travelcard

I would like to know if I should buy an Oyster Card or a Travelcard to see the sights in the City of London using public transportation. I do not plan to travel outside the London area.

Also can the Travelcard fees be loaded on the Oyster Card. raff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph Wimberly (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deposit of £3 for all new cards?

Oyster_card#Sales says "A refundable deposit of £3 is paid for all new Oyster cards." But this TfL page says Visitor Oyster cards cost £2. Nurg (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Visitor Oyster cards and normal Oyster cards are different. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

National Rail rollout

I have made a number of updates to reflect the full rollout on National Rail from Jan 2009. Now that this hurdle has been overcome, I've taken the opportunity to create a Validity section and consolidated all the repetititve references to where Oyster is and isn't valid. Previously there were several setnecnes telling me Oyster wasn't valid on NR all over the article and it makes more sense to have this informaiton all in one place. The Use section should now be concerned only with the method of using the card, not with any issues around validity. The long and tortuous history of getting Oyster onto NR is now under the Rollout history section, as again, this information was scattered in repetitive paragraphs all over the article. I hope everyone finds this easier to read.Cnbrb (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Early History

Should the following information be added into the article? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/smart-card-bus-tickets-go-on-trial-1394394.html Coatgal (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation request for authority on the Brand section by Andrew McCrum.

As a brand name creator and linguistic validator, I was employed by Saatchi and Saatchi design to find a name for the new automated travel card to be used on various methods of public transport in London in 2001. The brand values mentioned in the article were all cited in my submission to Saatchi and Saatchi Design. In addition, I pointed out that it had a high integrity rating, meaning that there were few phonetically or visually simillar words. I also stated that it had a luxury element to its meaning that will be useful in some cases and not in others.

The pre-existence of the Octopus card in Hong Kong and the support of the Saatchi and Saatchi team was important in the selection. Although graphically not dissimilar both with an initial O and semantically similar, as both are marine animals, the componential meaning for the octopus and oyster, and consequently any attendant brand values, are very different. The octopus, a cephalopod with a head contained in each of its eight arms, is arguably a much better choice for a multi functional, multi-destinational smart card. The oyster, a bivalve, with its digestive and reproductive system and secured within its hard, calcified shells has a whole host of different component meanings that were used in its promotion to Saatchi and Saatchi design as indicated on the paragraph I added to the Wikipedia page about three yeaers ago. I am not sure how to avoid having the [citation needed] alongside this para but I would be chuffed to the gunwhales if my entry could be substantiated in some way having just spotted this rather arbitrary disqualifier probably a long time after it was entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.52.40 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As a brand name creator and linguistic validator, I was employed by Saatchi and Saatchi design to find a name for the new automated travel card to be used on various methods of public transport in London in 2001. The brand values mentioned in the article were all cited in my submission to Saatchi and Saatchi Design. In addition, I pointed out that it had a high integrity rating, meaning that there were few phonetically or visually simillar words. I also stated that it had a luxury element to its meaning that will be useful in some cases and not in others.

The pre-existence of the Octopus card in Hong Kong and the support of the Saatchi and Saatchi team was important in the selection. Although graphically not dissimilar both with an initial O and semantically similar, as both are marine animals, the componential meaning for the octopus and oyster, and consequently any attendant brand values, are very different. The octopus, a cephalopod with a head contained in each of its eight arms, is arguably a much better choice for a multi functional, multi-destinational smart card. The oyster, a bivalve, with its digestive and reproductive system and secured within its hard, calcified shells has a whole host of different component meanings that were used in its promotion to Saatchi and Saatchi design as indicated on the paragraph I added to the Wikipedia page about three yeaers ago. I am not sure how to avoid having the [citation needed] alongside this para but I would be chuffed to the gunwales if my entry could be substantiated in some way having just spotted this rather arbitrary disqualifier probably a long time after it was entered.

Andrew McCrum, Appella brand naming and validation, 28.1.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.52.40 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oyster Card Overcharging

Based on a real incident on 25 January 2010 during morning rush hour, when trains were held up in a tunnel for an hour, resulting in the total delay of about 90 minutes, the Oyster Card systems split up a single journey into two incomplete journeys.

The result was a £6 charge for the Incomplete journey based on Entry before 9am, and a £4.30 charge for the second incomplete journey. Thus I was overcharged by a total of £10.30 for a single journey, which normally costs £2.70. As the delay was well over 15 minutes, the total cost should have been refunded.

I estimate 25,000 passengers would have been caught by the same long delays on 25 January, of which say 25% would have been using Oyster Pay as you Go Cards. The total overcharged by LT would be 25,000 x 25% x £10.30 = £64,375.

Using the statistics on the main page (£18M charged but only £800k refunded), I calculate the proportion who take the time and effort to claim their money back as 4.5%. Therefore, the ill-gotten "profit" to LT would be approx £61,500.

As I had touched in and out, I was not aware until the next evening when I checked my Oyster balance that there was anything amiss. Many others would have failed to notice this. Of those who did notice, I would guess that a large number would have been discouraged from recovering the money, which required visits to two tube station ticket halls to recover the first £4.30, a lond telephone conversation with the Oyster Helpline, to recover the next £3.30, and the completion of a form and a long wait to receive the remaining £2.70 voucher. I am assuming that having taken these steps, I will get my money back. If any of these processes fails, I may need to become involved in further correspondence.

My experience is listed below.

I am still trying to recover my money. The Station where I entered the underground was able to reverse only the £4.30 charge, while the £6.0 charge was blocked. I tried at the station at the other end, but they were not able to cancel the charge either. I was advised to telephone, which I did, however, they were only willing to reimburse me an additional £3.30 - they have yet to do so. The balance, £2.70, which was what my journey would originally have cost. The Oyster Helpline were not willing to refund the full charge, even though the journey was delayed by well over 15 minutes. To get that money back, I have to complete a form, cite all the details, and wait several weeks before my money can be returned.

Thus it seems that there is a glitch in the system which turns incidents on the underground into profitable money spinners for LT.

Is this charging method by LT legal? Shouldn't they be required to take steps to refund their customers? After all, it was the LT computer systems which assume that a single unusually long journey should be interpreted as two incomplete journeys which automatically take punitive charges. The information of a points failure at Baker Street was certainly known to LT, as was the fact that there is no way of getting from the starting station to the end station which avoids Baker Street.

Any ideas? Is anyone else collecting information about how our money is being incorrectly taken from our Oyster Cards?

62.254.3.224 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidents such as this are picked up by Transport for LOndon and automatic refunds issued. As the account closing only happens three days after the date of travel and it can take a further day to get the refund to the gates it may take four or five days before refunds are given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.133 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this is some time after the event, but if this happens to anyone else you need to note that the refund is not as automatic as the previous post suggests. Although TfL will pick up the problem and realise that a refund is due to the affected card, it will not automatically be applied. The card holder has to (within 28 days) nominate the station and date at which the refund will be applied to the card. The refund will be applied when the card holder touches-in (which must be part of a journey otherwise the maximum fare is applied for an unresolved journey). The refund only remains at the gate line for 8 days after which it must be re-requested. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Stratford

This is a complicated station with many different oyster installations. As a foreigner it dificult to know when to touch in or out. You have:

  • barriers at the entrance
  • barriers at the Julilee line (now open)
  • check in/out for DLR
  • route validator on the London overground.

Several combinations are posible where maybe you need to touch in:

  • DLR - National rail
  • DLR - Central line
  • DLR - Jubilee line
  • National rail - Jubilee line

Could someone bring some clarity? Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the barriers at the entrance are obviously for customers entering the station from the street. The barriers at the Jubilee line, and standalone reader for the DLR, are there for the benefit of passengers arriving off National Rail trains from outside Greater London (or maybe, more realistically to STOP them getting onto the Jubilee without paying!).

In this case, if you arrived from off the street, you'd only need to touch in at the entrance gates. If you wanted the Jubilee line, obviously you need to touch again to get through there - but the system knows this is the case and understands what you're doing. You don't need to touch in at the DLR, but if you did I suspect again the system would realise what you did and there wouldn't be a problem. You don't need to use the pink validator as the system already knows you've travelled via Stratford, since you touched in there.

If you arrived off a National Rail train, you'd touch in at the Jubilee gateline, or on the standalone readers on the DLR/Overground/Central line platforms.

In response to your specific interchanges suggested:

  • DLR - NR: no need to touch in again, assuming you touched in to the DLR when you boarded at your origin station. Need to touch on the pink validator if you're making a journey which avoids Zone 1.
  • DLR - Central line: same as above.
  • DLR - Jubilee line: same as above.
  • National Rail - DLR: if you had a paper ticket for the National Rail train, you'd need to touch in to the DLR. If you were using Oyster, you don't need to touch in again, but you need to touch the pink validator if you're avoiding Zone 1. jdan (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

circular routes

The works on the basis that the traveler takes a logical route. But what if you take a circular route? For example: I took a direct train from King Cross to Wimbledon. I wanted to continue to take the district line to Earls court. Without going out of the station I touched in at LU platform. I was not certain and I checked the card by the station supervisor. I was checked out! She let me out the gate and I entered the station via the barrier. What happens when you take a loop route and remain in the train on the return leg. At what point is the PAYG stil valid? With a paper travelcard you dont have this problem. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you took the Thameslink route from Kings Cross to Wimbledon. By touching out at Wimbledon, you would have closed this leg and therefore needed to touch in again to use the District, although that begs the question of why you didn't just go from K-X to EC using the Piccadilly line. The comparison with a paper TC is false, because that ticket covers you for all journeys within the valid zones, while PAYG keeps taking off single fares until you reach the cap for the zones you've used, at which point it effectively "becomes" a TC. If you only make one single journey on PAYG, you only get charges for a single journey; if you buy a paper TC, but only make a single journey on it, you don't get the difference refunded. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I am a railhobbyist and I frequently travel without a particular purpose, just to enjoy the scenery. I agree that the tarif system shouldnt be adapted for this kind of travel. However there is an implicit rule for the PAYG to be valid:
  • You have to travel "from" the place where you last touched in. You cannot travel "toward" it.
If you travel from A to B and then to C and back to A (circular route) you have to break (exit) the station somewhere. The card can combine journeys but there are limits. example: Watford Euston, (short break at station) then Euston Kings Cross ---> Journey Watford Kings-Cross. I suspect the combinations have to be in a logical direction of travel. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: When you thought you 'touched in on the LU platform', you actually touched out, because you were already touched in. Therefore you completed the journey you made from Kings Cross - Wimbledon. Then you were, as you say 'checked out'. jdan (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

PAYG

I think Pay as you go, PAYG, should be more pedagogically introduced and that capitals should be used. The use of PAYG here does not correspond any of the descriptions in PAYG. --Ettrig (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, found it. But the concept is used in the text long before it is explained. --Ettrig (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of Station Interchange

The article details Out of Station Interchange in what seems the only WP explanation but OSI is not confined to Oyster Card use or even to the Great Wen.--SilasW (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Negative balance?

Does anyone know the maximum negative balance you can get on an oyster which will still let you exit? For example, you enter a zone 6 station with £1.30 on your card and then travel across zone 1 to another zone 6 station. This should cost £4.20 peak, which would leave you with £-2.90. Will the barriers still let you through or will they display a "seek assistance" message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.122.171 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The gates will always let you out provided that you touched in at the start of your journey. The cards go into a negative balance at the time you start your journey as a maximum fare of up to £6 is charged. The system lets you in if you have the minimum fare payable from that station on your card. Upon exit the correct fare is charged and a refund applied to the card. If you did not touch in at the start of your journey then you will be charged a maximum fare upon exit and if that is higher than the balance on your card you will be refused exit. A "Seek Assistance" message will show on your card with error code 36 ("Insufficient Balance") where the gate is able to display the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unencrypted Oyster information

"While it has been suggested that a good reader could read personal details from quite a distance there has been no evidence of anyone being able to unencrypt Oyster information."

Incorrect. http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mgv98/MIFARE_files/report.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.212.74 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Correct. If you read the report, it does state that they were not able to actually decrypt any of the information on the card. However, they did note that certain information and monetary amounts had fixed (though encrypted) bit patterns. Writing those bit patterns to a card loaded that information or amount of money onto the card (even though they still did know how it was encrypted). It was also noted that the technique would not get you far as the TfL system would spot the sudden change of credit from the last time that the card was used and automatically invalidate the card. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Map

TFL produce a map of all stations you can use your oyster card on. I think it would be a good idea to incude this map. It shows both Underground and Overground stations along with normal train stations: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/oyster-rail-services-map.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.242.82 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We can use it as a reference but we can't include that actual map in the article. It is TfL's copyright and we can't copy it into Wikipedia. TfL is very serious about protecting its copyrights. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a student. I need to travel zone 2 to zone 6. I am wondering to use a oyster photocard. For this reason I want to know how much the weekly fare is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.108.18.181 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Abolition of Oyster Extension Permits (OEPs) as of 22nd May 2011

I've edited the article suitably to either remove references to OEPs or to add on a few words saying they have now been abolished, where appropriate. jdan (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Permitted traveltime

My experience with the oystercard in London are not so good. The pricecap is not really effective when you use the card as I used it. Frequently the allowed traveltime was exceeded. When you take some extra time to take pictures or take not the fastest route, there are problems. For example: I touched in Stratford, spend some ten minutes taking pictures (there is a lot to see), then took the NLL to Richmond without stopping on the way. In Richmond the system found that I had taken to long and punished me by checking-in again instead of checking out. This is a direct train! It is probably faster to take the central line and change in the city than taking the direct train with al the many stops. Or should I have made an extra touchin in Stratford to tel the system I would not be travelling via the centrum of London? Moreover I find that once the oystercard reaches the day-limit it should no longer check on traveltime as there is purpose to it.

Next time I buy a travelcard on oystercard for the day, and I can travel as I want, without any limitations. (roundtrips and detours are posible) Bus and tram is than included (separate limit) Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

By disruption the allowed traveltime is extended. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to TfL, Oyster was designed with the millions of people who commute daily in mind, rather than a handful of enthusiasts. I don't think you can really knock them for that. You'd be better just buying a paper travelcard if you want to spend ages in the system, IMO. The permitted travel time from Stratford to Richmond is 120 mins during the weekday and longer in evenings/weekends, and the train only takes around 60 mins, so I don't know what on earth you were doing to take so long between touch-in and touch-out really!

You wouldn't need to touch in again at Stratford, and that wouldn't have indicated a route to it anyway. I suppose, if anywhere, you should touch on a pink reader at Highbury and Islington - but this would only affect the single fare you got charged, not the maximum permitted journey time. I think it's right that TfL enforce a maximum permitted journey - otherwise you could touch in at Holborn, go on a 12 hour jaunt all around the system, then touch out at Tottenham Court Road, and only be charged for a Zone 1 journey, which wouldn't be fair.

But yes, just buy a paper travelcard in future. jdan (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Privacy

I've added more up to date (February 2012) figures for Police use of Oyster database. In light of these figures, the police are accessing the database many times a day. Presumably they are finding some useful information ... WestNab (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Staff Oyster Card Pictures

Does anyone else find the pictures of the Staff Oyster Cards of any use? Fkmd (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Gate codes

This FOIA request to TfL has a PDF in it containing the ticket barrier status codes. That could possibly be of use to this article somewhere. — Scott • talk 10:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Refund of deposit in cash at Underground station

While I fully accept that the reference provided from TfL states that the deposit on an oyster card is given in cash by an oyster top up machine, the procedure described goes against the objective of introducing the deposit in the first place. The oyster top up machine has no facility for rerturning the oyster card within it once the deposit is returned. The supplied reference also clearly supports this as it implies that the card holder retains possession of the card (as it states the card becomes unusable). The whole point of the deposit was to avoid oyster cards being disposed of as general rubbish once they were no longer required (as the next paragraph states). Once the deposit has been refunded, the oyster card (still in the holder's possession) has no use beyond being disposed of as general rubbish - exactly what the deposit was intended to avoid. This claim needs investigation and clarification. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I recall that you you are correct about the reason for the introduction of the deposit though the claim in the article is tagged as unreferenced. However, what it says in the article about the cash refund from a machine is entirely correct. I, today, obtained my £5 deposit back along with a small unused credit on my oyster card and am still in possession of the deactivated oyster card. Though some may regard this as original research, it only backs up what has already been adequately referenced. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Oyster card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oyster card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oyster card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Origins of the Name Oyster

It surely beggars belief that the name "Oyster" did not owe something to the Hong Kong "Octopus" card, that preceded it by some years, and has exactly the same purpose. PC 217.156.210.141 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oyster card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Oyster card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Oyster card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Oystercard is not a ticket

An Oystercard is not a ticket, it is more akin to a purse/wallet. As such an Oystercard is not valid for anything - all that is valid is the product on it, most obviously a season ticket, or the pay-as-you-go product that has made the card very popular.

People say Oyster when they mean Oyster PAYG, but this is an encyclopedia ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oyster_card/Archive_2&oldid=1190080764"