ERASOR
ERASOR copied to clipboard
LimHyungTae
Remove much more static points(false positive) than expectation
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!
I have encountered the same problem as well. ERASOR almost removed all the point clouds on the tree canopy.
before filter
after filter
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!
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.