JP4857714B2 - Boarding fee verification system - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a system for verifying the validity of a boarding fee calculated in an automatic payment machine or automatic ticket gate at a station.

  For example, if a prepaid card is used to get on from a certain station, when the prepaid card is read by the automatic ticket gate at the getting-off station, the amount corresponding to the fare in the boarding section is reduced from the remaining amount of the card and payment is performed. This allows passengers to enter through the automatic ticket gate. Also, if you use a commuter pass to get to a station outside the section, you will not be able to participate in the commuter pass at the disembarking station. In the case of a compound ticket that combines the functions of both a commuter pass and a prepaid card, when the compound ticket is read by an automatic ticket checker, the ticket checker automatically calculates the transit fee, and the charge is the remaining amount of the prepaid amount. Process to reduce the amount. As a result, the passenger can enter through the automatic ticket checker without having to pay through the automatic checkout machine. On the other hand, in the case of a single commuter pass that is not a composite ticket, when the commuter pass is inserted into the automatic checkout machine, the checkout machine automatically calculates and displays the overtaking fee. . Passengers can enter through the automatic ticket gate by inserting this check ticket into the automatic ticket gate. Also, if the ticket is a ticket, the ticket will be settled with an automatic settlement machine.

  Current automatic payment machines and automatic ticket gates are equipped with a boarding fee calculation program (hereinafter referred to as “fare calculation software”) that calculates a boarding fee for the above-mentioned payment. In recent years, this fare calculation software has a tendency to make it possible to use prepaid cards issued individually by electric railway companies in common among multiple electric railways, so it can also be used when transferring between multiple electric railway companies. As you can see, the situation is quite complicated.

  By the way, when there are a plurality of boarding routes from one station to another station, if the boarding fee is different for each route, it is reasonable to perform payment based on the cheapest boarding fee. In the following Patent Document 1, the use of a composite ticket that has the functions of both a commuter pass and a prepaid card is used to adjust the shortage when boarding from outside the commuter pass section and getting off at a station in the commuter pass section. Is described. In this document, the boarding route from the boarding station outside the commuter pass section to the crossing station that can transfer to other routes in the commuter pass section is selected, and the shortest fare is selected. Checkout is done.

Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 9-251556

  Conventionally, as a method of verifying whether fare calculation software is functioning correctly, a test case (test ticket, installation station, forecast result, etc.) is created based on a certain specification, and the calculation result is confirmed based on this. The method was taken. However, if the specifications themselves are incomplete, or there are restrictions due to memory capacity or processing speed, the cheapest boarding route may not be extracted accurately, and the payment processing by the fare calculation software may not be performed properly on the actual machine There is.

  For example, as shown in FIG. 4, as a boarding route from a station with A train to a station with C train, route 1 of A train → B train → C train and route 2 of A train → D train → C train In some cases, the C Electric Railway automatic ticket checker and automatic checkout machine may not have D Railway route data or fare data. This is because it is handled that it does not hold the railway data that is out of the settlement range in the specification. Therefore, when the settlement is performed at the C train station, the settlement fee calculated based on Route 2 is actually cheaper, but there is no data for Route 2, so the settlement is performed based on Route 1. Phenomenon occurs. Such a phenomenon occurs due to the restrictions on the specifications, but there are cases where the date has passed since the specifications were determined, and in recent years, the demand for the quality of fare calculation software is also high. Therefore, it is necessary to verify whether or not the previously determined specification is valid.

  In addition, in the metropolitan area and other areas where there are many stations that can be transferred to other lines, regardless of the company's own line and other companies' lines, the memory of the actual machine can be found by identifying all the boarding routes that can be connected. Since the capacity is insufficient and it is impossible to cope with it, or it takes a lot of processing time, in practice, there are some restrictions on the determination of the boarding route. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, as a route from a station with A train to a station with D train, route 1 of A train → B train → C train → D train and A train → E train → F train → G If there is route 2 from Electric Railway to D Electric Railway, D Electric Railway's automatic payment machines and automatic ticket gates have route data and fare data for all electric railways (AG), but route data (from a certain station) Since the information indicating the cheapest route when going to another station) only holds data up to the fourth line, there is a case where the route data of the route 2 that becomes the five-line route is not held. Therefore, in this case as well, when the settlement is performed at the D railway station, the settlement fee calculated based on the route 2 is actually lower, but there is no data on the route 2. The phenomenon that payment is performed occurs.

  In the conventional verification method, it is not possible to verify whether or not the settlement process performed on the actual machine is appropriate when there is such a specification deficiency or a restriction on the performance of the actual machine.

  The present invention has been made to solve the above-described problems, and the object of the present invention is to verify the validity of the boarding fee calculated by the fare calculation software installed in the actual machine. The purpose is to make payment possible.

In the boarding fee verification system according to the present invention, when there are a plurality of boarding routes from one station to another station, whether or not the cheapest boarding fee between the two stations is calculated at the time of settlement at the other station. A first processing means for extracting a boarding route between two stations under a certain restriction condition and extracting a lowest boarding fee from the boarding fees for each boarding route In a boarding route other than the boarding route identified by the first processing means, a search is made as to whether or not there is a boarding route including a station that can perform a no-latch connection that makes a connection between two stations without passing through an automatic ticket gate, When there is the boarding route, the second processing means for extracting the lowest boarding fee from the boarding fee of the route, the boarding fee extracted by the first processing means, and the second processing means are extracted. Compared to the boarding fee Te, and includes output means for outputting the comparison result as actually used except in that the data of the extended data by actual equipment, files and carrying only data of ride path including a station capable Noratchi transit. The first processing means extracts the cheapest boarding fee by performing a simulation with a boarding fee calculation program of the actual machine based on the data actually used in the actual machine and the test data. The second processing means extracts the lowest boarding fee by performing a simulation using a boarding fee calculation program different from the actual machine based on the extension data and the test data.

  In the present invention, the restriction in extracting the boarding route between two stations is left as it is, and only the boarding route including the station capable of the no-latch connection is extracted and added as extension data. And the cheapest boarding fee calculated based on the boarding route with certain restrictions as before, and the cheapest boarding fee calculated based on the boarding route including the station that can be connected by newly added no latch and Are compared and the result is output. Therefore, by analyzing the comparison result, the validity of the boarding fee (settlement fee) calculated in the actual machine can be verified and reflected in the modification of the fare calculation software. In other words, if it turns out that there is a no-latch transit route that is cheaper than the fare calculated by the actual machine, the fare calculation software may be modified so that the actual machine can perform settlement based on that route. it can. This makes it possible to optimize the settlement process. Even if the route is the cheapest route in the specification, if there is a cheaper route, it is possible to detect the cheapest route, so review the specification and optimize the specification. It becomes possible to plan.

  Further, in the present invention, not all the transit route data is held as the extension data, but only the transit route data including a station capable of performing no latch transit is retained. This is because in the case of a no-latch connection, the automatic ticket gate does not pass at the transfer station, so it is not possible to determine which transfer station the passenger has passed on the way, and in determining which route is the cheapest, the no-latch transfer route This is because it is necessary to list as a candidate of the route that the passenger has passed. Also, possessing only the data for the no-latch transit route makes it easy to calculate the cheapest fare, and can suppress the increase in data volume and save the capacity of the storage unit, thereby suppressing an increase in cost. be able to.

  According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a display unit for displaying the comparison result output from the output unit is provided. The display unit includes information on the ticket used for the simulation and the simulation by the first processing unit. A result, a simulation result by the second processing means, and a match result obtained by matching each simulation result are displayed. Thereby, the simulation result by the first processing means and the simulation result by the second processing means can be compared and the result can be easily analyzed.

  According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, as a result of comparing the boarding charges, the output means compares the lowest fare extracted by the second processing means with the lowest fare extracted by the first processing means. When the boarding fee is cheaper, the comparison result is output. If the charges obtained by the first processing means and the second processing means are the same, or if the charges obtained by the first processing means are cheaper than the charges obtained by the second processing means, There is no problem in the actual fare calculation of the actual machine, and the problem arises when the charge obtained by the second processing means is lower than the charge obtained by the first processing means. Therefore, the analysis work can be efficiently performed by outputting the comparison result only when this problem occurs.

  According to the present invention, by comparing the fare calculated by the first processing means with the fare calculated by the second processing means, the validity of the boarding fare calculated by the fare calculation software installed in the actual machine is verified. Therefore, it is possible to pay the appropriate fee by reflecting the result in the modification of the fare calculation software.

  Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of a boarding fee verification system 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention. The boarding fee verification system 100 is typically composed of a personal computer (PC). Reference numeral 10 denotes a control unit including a CPU, 11 denotes an operation unit including a keyboard and a mouse, 12 denotes an input interface provided between the control unit 10 and the operation unit 11, and 13 denotes a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD ( 14 is an output interface provided between the control unit 10 and the display unit 13, 15 is a memory such as a ROM or RAM, and 16 is a storage unit consisting of a hard disk. The storage unit 16 stores a database and processing software described below. Note that “software” in the present embodiment means software, which strictly refers to a computer program, but is referred to as software for convenience.

  FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the relationship between the database and the processing software. The database is composed of five databases # 1 to # 5, which are stored in database files (hereinafter simply referred to as “files”) 21 to 25, respectively. The processing software is composed of three pieces of software: an actual machine simulator 31, a verification simulator 32, and path comparison software 33.

  The file 21 stores, as database # 1, route data and fare data actually used in actual machines such as an automatic checkout machine and an automatic ticket gate, test ticket data, and installed station data. . The route data includes a railway company name, route name, station name, transit station, and the like. The fare data is data representing a boarding fee between the stations. The ticket data is the same data as the data recorded on the actual ticket. The installed station data is data including a station code of a station where the test ticket is settled.

  The database # 2 stored in the file 22 is a feature of the present invention, and includes extended data other than data actually used in the actual machine. That is, in the file 22, route data and fare data of a boarding route including a station capable of no-latch transfer other than the route data and fare data of the database # 1 are stored as extended data. Here, “no latch transit” means that when transferring from one transportation to another transportation, the connection is made without passing through an automatic ticket gate installed at the transit station. For example, a case where two electric railways are interoperating with each other and one electric railway can be transferred from the other railway to the other at the same home is a no-latch transit. In the case of a no-latch connection, it is not encoded in the ticket because it does not pass through the automatic ticket gate at the connecting station, and it is not possible to determine which connecting station the passenger has passed through at the getting-off station, so which route is the cheapest In the determination, it is necessary to list the no-latch transit route as a candidate route through which the passenger has passed. Therefore, as described above, the route data and the fare data of the boarding route including the station capable of the no-latch connection are stored in the file 22 as the extended data.

  The file 23 stores, as the database # 3, route information regarding the cheapest boarding fee obtained as a result of the simulation by the real machine simulator 31. The contents of this simulation will be described later.

  The file 24 stores, as database # 4, route information regarding the cheapest boarding fee obtained as a result of the simulation by the verification simulator 32. The contents of this simulation will also be described later.

  The file 25 stores the result of comparing the path information obtained by the actual machine simulator 31 and the path information obtained by the verification simulator 32 as the database # 5. The contents of the comparison result will be described later.

  The actual machine simulator 31 reads the route data and fare data of the actual machine from the file 21, and also reads the test ticket data and the installed station data, and is installed in the automatic checkout machine and the automatic ticket gate based on these data. The simulation is done with the existing fare calculation software. In other words, the settlement fee is calculated according to the fare calculation software of the actual machine when it is assumed that the user boarded from a station using the test ticket and got off at the installed station where the actual machine to be verified is installed. Then, the route information regarding the cheapest boarding fee obtained as a result is output to the file 23. This route information includes a boarding station, a getting-off station, a transit station, a fare, a settlement fee, and the like.

  The verification simulator 32 reads the route data and fare data of the actual machine from the file 21, reads the test ticket data and the installed station data, and further reads the route data and fare data, which are extended data, from the file 22. Based on the data, a simulation is performed using a fare calculation software created with a logic different from the actual fare calculation software. In other words, the payment fee is calculated according to the fare calculation software that is different from the actual machine, assuming that you get on from the station using the test ticket and get off at the station where the actual machine to be verified is installed. To do. Then, the route information regarding the cheapest boarding fee obtained as a result is output to the file 24. This route information also includes the boarding station, the getting-off station, the transit station, the fare, the settlement fee, and the like.

  The route comparison software 33 compares the route information obtained by the actual machine simulator 31 with the route information obtained by the verification simulator 32, and whether or not the cheapest boarding route obtained by both is the same route or not Determines which route is cheaper and outputs the comparison result to the file 25.

  In the above, the control unit 10 and the actual machine simulator 31 constitute one embodiment of the first processing means in the present invention, and the control unit 10 and the verification simulator 32 constitute one embodiment of the second processing means in the present invention. The control unit 10 and the route comparison software 33 constitute one embodiment of the output means in the present invention. The file 21 in the storage unit 16 constitutes one embodiment of the first storage means in the present invention, and the file 22 in the storage unit 16 constitutes one embodiment of the second storage means in the present invention. Yes.

  FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing a verification procedure in the boarding fee verification system 100 described above. In the following, a processing procedure for verifying a boarding fee will be described according to this flowchart.

  First, in step S1, test data to be verified is set. This setting is performed by referring to the file 21 and selecting necessary ticket data and installed station data. Specifically, when a predetermined item is selected from the ticket data and the installed station data called from the file 21 on the screen of the display unit 13, the selected test data is set in the memory 15. Thereafter, when a simulation start operation is performed, the process proceeds to step S2, where the actual machine simulator 31 performs simulation of the actual machine according to the above-described procedure, and calculates the cheapest route. This cheapest route is defined as route A. In step S3, the verification simulator 32 performs a simulation different from the actual machine according to the above-described procedure, and calculates the cheapest route. This cheapest route is defined as route B.

  Next, in step S4, the route comparison software 33 determines whether or not the route A calculated by the actual simulator 31 and the route B calculated by the verification simulator 32 match. If route A and route B match (step S4: YES), there is no problem with the current fare calculation of the actual machine for this test data, so steps S5 to S8 are skipped and the process proceeds to step S9. . In step S9, it is determined whether or not to verify other cases. When verification is performed for another case (step S9: YES), the process returns to step S1 to accept setting of new test data, and when verification is not performed for another case (step S9: NO), the process is performed. finish.

  If the route A and the route B do not match in step S4 (step S4: NO), the process proceeds to step S5, and the route comparison software 33 determines which of the route A and the route B has a lower settlement fee. Check by. If it is determined in step S6 that the route A is cheaper (step S6: NO), that is, if the calculation result by the actual machine simulator 31 is lower, the current fare calculation of the actual machine is performed for the test data of this time. Since there is no problem, steps S7 to S8 are skipped and the process proceeds to step S9. On the other hand, if it is determined in step S6 that the route B is cheaper (step S6: YES), that is, if the calculation result by the verification simulator 32 is cheaper, the process proceeds to step S7 and the route calculated by the verification simulator 32 is obtained. Check whether B is correct (a valid route) or not. For example, if the route B is calculated based on ticket data different from the test ticket data, there is a problem with the verification simulator 32, so it is determined that the route B is not a correct route (step S7). : NO), step S8 is skipped and the process proceeds to step S9. On the other hand, when the route B calculated by the verification simulator 32 is correct (step S7: YES), there is a problem in the fare calculation of the actual machine for this test data. A comparison result between the simulation by the simulation and the simulation by the verification simulator 32 is output. The comparison result is stored in the file 5 as described above. The comparison result is displayed on the display unit 13.

  FIG. 6 shows a display example of the comparison result on the display unit 13. On the screen of the display unit 13, a boarding ticket information display unit 13a, a real machine simulator result display unit 13b, a verification simulator result display unit 13c, a match result display unit 13d, a mismatch number display unit 13e, and an analysis information input unit 13f are displayed. Has been.

  As shown in FIG. 7, predetermined ticket information extracted from test ticket data is displayed on the ticket information display unit 13a.

  As shown in FIG. 8, the result of the simulation performed by the actual machine simulator 31 is displayed on the actual machine result display unit 13b. Here, the cheapest route information (riding route, fare, check-out fee, etc.) is the cheapest when you get on from the X station to the Y station with the ticket for the section X station-Y station and get over to the Z station. It is displayed.

  The result of the simulation performed by the verification simulator 32 is displayed on the verification simulator result display unit 13c. FIG. 9 shows a display example, and the same items as the display items shown in FIG. 8 are displayed. Here, the cheapest route information is different from that in FIG. 8, and the settlement calculated by the verification simulator 32 is shown. The price is cheaper.

  The match result display unit 13d displays a match result obtained by matching the simulation result displayed on the actual machine simulator result display unit 13b with the simulation result displayed on the verification simulator result display unit 13c. FIG. 10 shows an example of the display. For each test, match / mismatch of both simulation results is displayed for each matching item. Ranks A to C represent the importance of each matching item.

  As shown in FIG. 11, the number of matches / mismatches for each test is displayed in the mismatch number display section 13e by rank.

  The analysis information input unit 13f displays an input field for inputting the result of analysis based on the results displayed on the actual machine simulator result display unit 13b, the verification simulator result display unit 13c, and the like. FIG. 12 shows a display example, and information such as a phenomenon name, a classification, an occurrence example, and an occurrence condition is input to each input column. This input is performed using the keyboard of the operation unit 11 (FIG. 1). The input information is stored in a predetermined area of the storage unit 16, and the accumulated information can be viewed on the display unit 13 or printed by a printer (not shown). FIG. 13 shows an example of a browsing screen, and information input by the analysis information input unit 13f is displayed in a list format for each test.

  Next, a specific example of simulation by the actual machine simulator 31 and the verification simulator 32 will be described with reference to FIGS. In these figures, a circle indicates the route range of each electric railway. Of course, the actual route range is not such a simple one, but here the route range is drawn by an adjacent circle for the sake of simplicity. The black circle represents the boarding station, the double circle represents the exit station, and the square represents the transit station.

[Specific Example 1]
In FIG. 4, it is assumed that there are a route 1 from A train → B train → C train and a route 2 from A train → D train → C train as a boarding route from a train with train A to a station with train C. . In this case, as mentioned above, due to the restrictions on the specifications, the actual equipment (automatic checkout machine, automatic ticket gate) installed at the station of C Electric Railway does not have the D Electric Railway route data or fare data. is there. In this case, the actual simulator 31, that is, the actual fare calculation software, calculates the route 1 as the cheapest route and gets on the route 1 even though the route 2 is actually the cheapest route. You will pay for the fee. On the other hand, when the verification system of the present invention is used, when the A electric railway and the D electric railway, and the D electric railway and the C electric railway are connected in a no-latch manner, the verification simulator 32 sets the route 2 on the basis of the extended data. Since it is calculated as a cheap route, it is understood that there is a problem in the fare determination software of the actual machine if the boarding fee of the cheapest route calculated by the verification simulator 32 is lower than the boarding fee of the cheapest route calculated by the actual machine simulator 31. . Such verification is performed for various test cases, and the fare determination software installed in the actual machine is modified based on the analysis information (FIG. 13) obtained from the simulation results for each test. Optimization can be achieved. In addition, when there is a route that is cheaper than the cheapest route in the specification, the route can be detected, so that the specification can be reviewed and optimized.

[Specific Example 2]
In FIG. 5, as a route from a station with A train to a station with D train, route 1 of A train → B train → C train → D train and A train → E train → F train → G train → D train Suppose that there is a route 2 of In this case, as mentioned above, the actual equipment (automatic checkout machines, automatic ticket gates) of the D Electric Railway station has route data and fare data for all electric railways (A to G), but it can be used in metropolitan areas. Due to restrictions on memory capacity and processing speed associated with complicated routes, route data indicating the cheapest route when going from one station to another station may only have route data up to four lines ahead. Then, since there is no route data for route 2 which is 5 lines in the actual equipment of D Electric Railway Station, even if the settlement fee is actually cheaper if route 2 is the cheapest route, the actual machine simulator 31. That is, the actual fare calculation software calculates the route 1 as the cheapest route and performs settlement with the boarding fee by the route 1. On the other hand, when the verification system of the present invention is used, the verification simulator 32 uses the route data of each railway held in the file 21 and the extended route data of each railway held in the file 22 regardless of the route data. By searching dynamically, routes that can be transited from the station with the A electric train to the station with the D electric train are extracted one after another, and the route with the lowest fare is calculated as the cheapest route. Therefore, if the route 2 is the cheapest route, it can be reliably extracted. After that, as in the case of FIG. 4, by reflecting the verification result on the modification of the fare calculation software, it is possible to optimize the settlement process in the actual machine. Also in this case, the specification can be optimized based on the detection of the cheapest route.

  As described above, according to the above-described embodiment, the comparison results of the simulations performed by the real machine simulator 31 and the verification simulator 32 are output. By referring to the comparison results, the checkout process in the real machine is valid. It can be verified. And if it turns out that there is a no-latch boarding route that is cheaper than the fare calculated by the actual machine, the fare calculation software should be modified so that the actual machine will perform payment based on the cheapest route. As a result, it is possible to optimize the settlement process, and it is possible to optimize the specification by reviewing the specification.

  Further, in the above-described embodiment, the file 22 does not have all the connection route data as the extension data, but only the data on the route including the station where the no-latch connection is possible. For this reason, the calculation process of the cheapest charge is facilitated, the increase in the data amount can be suppressed, the capacity of the storage unit 16 can be saved, and the cost increase can be suppressed.

  Further, when displaying the comparison result of the simulation on the display unit 13, the information on the ticket used for the test is displayed on the ticket information display unit 13a, and the result of the simulation performed by the actual machine simulator 31 is displayed on the actual machine simulator result display unit. 13b, the result of the simulation performed by the verification simulator 32 is displayed on the verification simulator result display unit 13c, and the result of matching each simulation result is displayed on the match result display unit 13d. Can be easily performed.

  Furthermore, the simulation comparison result is output only when the cheapest boarding fee calculated by the verification simulator 32 is lower than the cheapest boarding fee calculated by the actual simulator 31, so the fare calculation software can The comparison result can be referred to only when there is a problem, and the analysis work can be performed efficiently.

  In the present invention, various embodiments other than those described above can be adopted. For example, in FIG. 2, the actual machine data (route data, fare data) and test data (ticket data, installed station data) are stored in the same file 21, but the test data is stored in the actual machine. It may be separated from the data and stored in an independent file.

It is a lineblock diagram of a boarding fee verification system concerning an embodiment of the present invention. It is the figure which showed the relationship between a database and processing software. It is a flowchart showing the procedure of boarding fee verification. It is a figure explaining the example of simulation. It is a figure explaining the example of simulation. It is the figure which showed the example of a display of a comparison result. It is a display example in a boarding ticket information display part. It is an example of a display in a real machine simulator result display part. It is a display example in a verification simulator result display part. It is an example of a display in a matching result display part. It is a display example in a mismatch number display part. It is an example of a display in an analysis information input part. It is an example of the browsing screen of analysis information.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 10 Control part 11 Operation part 13 Display part 15 Memory 16 Storage part 21-24 Database file 31 Real machine simulator 32 Verification simulator 33 Route comparison software 100 Boarding fee verification system

Claims (3)

When there are a plurality of boarding routes from one station to another station, it is a system for verifying whether the cheapest boarding fee between the two stations is calculated at the time of settlement at the other station,
A first processing means for extracting a boarding route between the two stations under a certain restriction condition, and extracting a lowest boarding fee from the boarding fees of each boarding route that has been found;
In a boarding route other than the boarding route identified by the first processing means, a search is made as to whether or not there is a boarding route including a station capable of a no-latch connection that makes a connection between the two stations without passing through an automatic ticket gate. , When there is the boarding route, a second processing means for extracting the lowest boarding fee from the boarding fee of the route;
Output means for comparing the boarding fee extracted by the first processing means and the boarding fee extracted by the second processing means and outputting the comparison result;
As extended data other than the data actually used in the actual machine, a file that holds only the data of the boarding route including the station where the no-latch connection is possible , and
The first processing means extracts the lowest boarding fee by performing a simulation with a boarding fee calculation program of the actual machine based on the data actually used in the actual machine and the test data,
The second processing means extracts a lowest boarding fee by performing a simulation using a boarding fee calculation program different from an actual machine based on the extension data and the test data. Charge verification system. In the boarding fee verification system according to claim 1 ,
A display unit for displaying a comparison result output from the output unit;
The display unit displays information on the ticket used for the simulation, a simulation result by the first processing means, a simulation result by the second processing means, and a match result obtained by matching the simulation results. A boarding fee verification system characterized by that. In the boarding fee verification system according to claim 1 or 2 ,
The output means, as a result of comparing the boarding fee, when the cheapest fare extracted by the second processing means is cheaper than the cheapest fare extracted by the first processing means, A boarding fee verification system that outputs the comparison result.

Images