-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove much more static points(false positive) than expectation #24
Comments
I also observed this issue when benchmarking all methods: https://github.com/KTH-RPL/DynamicMap_Benchmark and reported ERASOR in the paper. Feel free to check. I think it's common. There are some conservative methods (mainly the ray-casting method) you can try like: https://github.com/Kin-Zhang/octomap, https://github.com/KTH-RPL/dufomap |
Thanks @Kin-Zhang, for the kind follow-up! Since our primary goal was to make a static map for a) localization and b) path planning/following purposes (and we also checked that kinds of loss of static points do not affect navigation quality). |
Even I am convinced that removing the crowns of trees sometimes helps long-term localization! |
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think people are talking about <static points, too much false positive> in a more general way, and crowns of trees are one example. You can imagine others if you think crowns are not important, but think about if too much static structure is removed. Sometimes it is fine, sometimes not. It depends a lot on your data and afterward, map usage. Like the example in DUFOMap, we have two-floor data, I think you can imagine how EARSOR performs already as it's highly height threshold-based. Feel free to run the data. The result here is a screenshot from DUFOMap result only. |
Hello, I'm sorry to bother you. I test your method in my own datasets, but I found the false positive points is very large. In the raw map, the stat. pts is 844762, and in the estimated map, the est.stat.pts is 475379, which leading the preservation rate is very low. Is it because of the parameter setting that causes this situation? How to deal with it?
I'm waiting for your reply!
Best!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: