Skip to content
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

Open
fentuoli opened this issue Nov 22, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Remove much more static points(false positive) than expectation #24

fentuoli opened this issue Nov 22, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@fentuoli
Copy link

fentuoli commented Nov 22, 2022

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!

@heroacool
Copy link

I have encountered the same problem as well. ERASOR almost removed all the point clouds on the tree canopy.
before filter
image

after filter
image

@Kin-Zhang
Copy link
Contributor

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

@LimHyungTae
Copy link
Owner

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).

@LimHyungTae
Copy link
Owner

Even I am convinced that removing the crowns of trees sometimes helps long-term localization!

@Kin-Zhang
Copy link
Contributor

Kin-Zhang commented Aug 12, 2024

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.
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants