334 combine highlyservd bus train

[james-westwood]

Pull Request submission

Insert detailed bullet points about your changes here!

Insert any instructions to help the reviewer, e.g. "install new requirements from requirements.txt"

*Let the reviewer know what data files are needed (to be grabbed from sync)

Closes or fixes

Fixes #

Code

• [ ] Requirements My/our code matches the requirements of the ticket
• [ ] Functionality: New functions meet requirements in issue ticket
• [ ] Compliant Code Code is as PEP 8 compliant as I can humanly make it
• [ ] Code runs The code runs on my machine
• [ ] Clean Code
  • [ ] Code has been linted (use your favourite linter)
  • [ ] Code adheres to DRY

Documentation

Any new code includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [ ] Function Documentation Docstrings within the function(s') definition(s) have been created
  • [ ] Includes parameters and returns for all major functions
  • [ ] Includes data types
• [ ] Updated Documentation: Working doc has been updated and a new ticket to update the master documentation has been created.

Data

• [ ] All data needed to run this script has been added to Sync

Testing

• [ ] Unit tests Unit tests have been created and are passing or a new ticket to create tests has been created

---

Peer Review Section

• [ ] All requirements install from (updated) requirements.txt
• [ ] Documentation has been created and is clear - check the google Doc
• [ ] Doctrings (Google format) have been created and accurately describe the function's functionality
• [ ] Unit tests pass, or if not present a new ticket to create tests has been created
• [ ] Code runs The code runs on reviewer's machine

Final approval (post-review)

The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction.

• [ ] I recommend merging this request.

---

Review comments

Insert detailed comments here!

These might include, but not exclusively:

• bugs that need fixing (does it work as expected? and does it work with other code that it is likely to interact with?)
• alternative methods (could it be written more efficiently or with more clarity?)
• documentation improvements (does the documentation reflect how the code actually works?)
• additional tests that should be implemented (do the tests effectively assure that it works correctly?)
• code style improvements (could the code be written more clearly?)

Your suggestions should be tailored to the code that you are reviewing. Be critical and clear, but not mean. Ask questions and set actions.

[james-westwood]

@nkshaw23 I have created a draft PR to collect all the commits together and work from here. Might be best to keep comments about the work in the issue #334 though.

[nkshaw23]

Tested for England, results viewed in QGIS. Everything looks good but would like to investigate a bit further.

@james-westwood outstanding task for this PR:

1) Build in the process for Scotland script. In an ideal world we would have these combined into one process, but we can look at this afterwards. 2) Once in scotland, can remove two functions from data_transform (add_stop_capacity_type and filter_stops) 3) Check for other functions that are no longer used

[jwestw]

@nkshaw23 I think it would be best to split out the Scotland stuff into it's own ticket + PR.

[nkshaw23]

@james-westwood This is now ready for review as we are splitting Scotland work into another ticket (#351 )

Closes #330 Closes #334 Closes #335

[nkshaw23]

Pipeline works from start to finish now. Just two comments from me.

Because we cant join NAPTAN onto the train data, we couldnt use the existing capacity_type function which relied on StopType codes from NAPTAN. Hence, the high/low capacity type has been added manually based on whether stop is bus, train or tram.

Further work on QA-ing outputs will be undertaken in #352

[jwestw]

I will pull the code and run it today.