Footprint param behavior in hydro-devel not fully backwards-compatible.

[hershwg]

In groovy nav, you could put your footprint param in the costmaps and they would read it. In hydro nav, the costmaps subscribe to the footprint as a topic. The costmaps no longer read the rosparam. move_base now looks for a rosparam for the footprint and publishes it if it finds one. However it is looking in the move_base namespace and above, which misses the footprints described in the costmap namespaces.

Move the footprint-param-reading calls into costmap_2d_ros.

[hershwg]

I propose fixing this by:

• removing the footprint publication from move_base
• put the searchParam("footprint") back into Costmap2DROS
• put support for dynamic reconfigure of "footprint" param back into Costmap2DROS
• leave the subscription to "footprint" topic in Costmap2DROS

The new behavior would be that footprints would be read from rosparams initially, but could be changed either by dynamic-reconfigure or by Polygon messages published to the appropriate topic.

This would be more backwards-compatible but still leave the nice feature of footprint-via-topic.

What do you think, @DLu (and anyone else)?

Is the existing footprint publication by move_base (in hydro nav) important for anything else other than sending the footprint to the costmaps?

[DLu]

I think this is an excellent compromise. There is no additional benefit to
having move base publish the topic that couldn't be accomplished with the
Polygon Stamped footprint.
On Jul 1, 2013 12:44 PM, "Dave Hershberger" notifications@github.com
wrote:

I propose fixing this by:

• removing the footprint publication from move_base
• put the searchParam("footprint") back into Costmap2DROS
• put support for dynamic reconfigure of "footprint" param back into
  Costmap2DROS
• leave the subscription to "footprint" topic in Costmap2DROS

The new behavior would be that footprints would be read from rosparams
initially, but could be changed either by dynamic-reconfigure or by Polygon
messages published to the appropriate topic.

This would be more backwards-compatible but still leave the nice feature
of footprint-via-topic.

What do you think, @DLu https://github.com/DLu (and anyone else)?

Is the existing footprint publication by move_base (in hydro nav)
important for anything else other than sending the footprint to the
costmaps?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/63#issuecomment-20297930
.