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

Tracking NN including labels #13

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Mar 15, 2017
Merged

Tracking NN including labels #13

merged 6 commits into from
Mar 15, 2017

Conversation

pet1330
Copy link
Contributor

@pet1330 pet1330 commented Jul 13, 2015

Adds Maximum cost to labels which do not match.

without auto formatting
if (alg == NN)
{
// Assign maximum cost if observations and trajectories labelled do not match
if (m_observations[i].tag != m_filters[j].tag)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This means that whenever NN is used, the tag checking will be employed, right? That's a change to the default behaviour that present to date. I think, it should be an optional behaviour. I suggest to actually implement this as another association algorithm, e.g. NN_TAGGED or NN_LABELED and making sure the original one is left as is.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@pet1330
Copy link
Contributor Author

pet1330 commented Jul 13, 2015

Yeah, I can change that. My thinking behind combining them was that if a label is provided then it is used to help distinguish them, but if a label is not provided then it is assigned an empty string, which when compared, will match and have no affect.

The only time this will ever differ from the original is when a label is provided but you don't want them to be further distinguished by it. Would this ever be something that you would want?

Restored default behaviour implimented another association algorithm
@pet1330
Copy link
Contributor Author

pet1330 commented Jul 13, 2015

Don't merge this yet. I've noticed some errors which need correcting first.

@pet1330
Copy link
Contributor Author

pet1330 commented Jul 15, 2015

That passed my tests, but needs to be checked 😄

@pet1330
Copy link
Contributor Author

pet1330 commented Mar 15, 2017

retest this please

@pet1330
Copy link
Contributor Author

pet1330 commented Mar 15, 2017

closes #12

@marc-hanheide can you merge this?

@marc-hanheide marc-hanheide merged commit f985f08 into LCAS:master Mar 15, 2017
@pet1330 pet1330 deleted the label2 branch March 15, 2017 15:47
@pet1330 pet1330 restored the label2 branch November 20, 2018 13:27
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants