Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

Is it possible to use the costmap_2d in the robot local frame?

I'm using the costmap_2d implementation in a custom way (not the navigation stack). The costmap_2d provides the rolling_window parameter, but it not assures "a proper local-obstacle-representation". The rolling_window only assures that the robot will remain in the center of the costmap while the orientation may (and typically does) change.

I tried to set the costmap parameters ("global_frame" and "robot_base_frame") both to "base_link" frame. The execution looked to work more or less but the result was not as good as I expected. Old marked obstacles looks like they were moving and following the robot. They look how they should to have been cleared but they haven't been for some reason.

IMHO the clearing raytraces are too slim to remove old obstacles so they remains alive. Since we are working in the local frame obstacles are moving continuously. The default costmap configuration does not look work so well for moving obstacles.

So I have some related questions: - Are there any way to clear all the marker obstacles in each sensor reading? - How can I improve the obstacle clearing when the scan resolution is poor regarding the costmap resolution? - Using ros costmaps as local obstacle world representation is not typical. So, any additional consideration for not to use the costmap as a local representation of the world obstacles?

Is it possible to use the costmap_2d in the robot local frame?

I'm using the costmap_2d implementation in a custom way (not the navigation stack). The costmap_2d provides the rolling_window parameter, but it not assures "a proper local-obstacle-representation". The rolling_window only assures that the robot will remain in the center of the costmap while the orientation may (and typically does) change.

I tried to set the costmap parameters ("global_frame" and "robot_base_frame") both to "base_link" frame. The execution looked to work more or less but the result was not as good as I expected. Old marked obstacles looks like they were moving and following the robot. They look how they should to have been cleared but they haven't been for some reason.

IMHO the clearing raytraces are too slim to remove old obstacles so they remains alive. remain marked. Since we are working in the local frame obstacles are looks like they were moving continuously. The while the robot look stopped. My conclusions after the experiments is that the default costmap configuration does not look work so well for moving obstacles.

So I have some related questions: - Are there any way to clear all the marker obstacles in each sensor reading? - How can I improve the obstacle clearing when the scan resolution is poor regarding the costmap resolution? - Using ros costmaps as local obstacle world representation is not typical. So, any additional consideration for not to use the costmap as a local representation of the world obstacles?

Is it possible to use the costmap_2d in the robot local frame?

I'm using the costmap_2d implementation in a custom way (not the navigation stack). The costmap_2d provides the rolling_window parameter, but it not assures "a proper local-obstacle-representation". The rolling_window only assures that the robot will remain in the center of the costmap while the orientation may (and typically does) change.

I tried to set the costmap parameters ("global_frame" and "robot_base_frame") both to "base_link" frame. The execution looked to work more or less but the result was not as good as I expected. Old marked obstacles looks like they were moving and following the robot. They look how they should to have been cleared but they haven't been for some reason.

IMHO the clearing raytraces are too slim to remove old obstacles so they remain marked. Since we are working in the local frame obstacles looks like they were moving while the robot look stopped. My conclusions after the experiments is that the default costmap configuration does not look work so well for moving obstacles.

So I have some related questions: - Are there any way to clear all the marker obstacles in each sensor reading? - How can I improve the obstacle clearing when the scan resolution is poor regarding the costmap resolution? - Using ros costmaps as local obstacle world representation is not typical. So, any additional consideration for not to use the costmap as a local representation of the world obstacles?

Is it possible to use the costmap_2d in the robot local frame?

I'm using the costmap_2d implementation in a custom way (not the navigation stack). The costmap_2d provides the rolling_window parameter, but it not assures "a proper local-obstacle-representation". The rolling_window only assures that the robot will remain in the center of the costmap while the orientation may (and typically does) change.

I tried to set the costmap parameters ("global_frame" and "robot_base_frame") both to "base_link" frame. The execution looked to work more or less but the result was not as good as I expected. Old marked obstacles looks like they were moving and following the robot. They look how they should to have been cleared but they haven't been for some reason.

IMHO the clearing raytraces are too slim to remove old obstacles so they remain marked. Since we are working in the local frame obstacles looks like they were moving while the robot look stopped. My conclusions after the experiments is that the default costmap configuration does not look work so well for moving obstacles.

So I have some related questions: - Are there any way to clear all the marker obstacles in each sensor reading? - How can I improve the obstacle clearing when the scan resolution is poor regarding the costmap resolution? - Using ros costmaps as local obstacle world representation is not typical. So, any additional consideration for not to use the costmap as a local representation of the world obstacles?