I just went through the process of manually creating a small lanelet2 map last week in JOSM. I then upgraded the map according to this doc to conform to the autoware lanelet2 extension (Great job @mitsudome-r on that doc btw).
Here is my feedback from the process:
- It was a little complicated to learn all the tags/relations and how to apply them in JOSM (took me maybe 4-6 hours to fully grasp it all during the process of map creation), but once you understand, it’s pretty straightforward. A walk-through guide explaining the map creation procedure would make this much simpler and faster. (I may create this guide if I have time, but no guarantees).
- Overall it was an easy experience since JOSM has so many existing features/plugins for map creations.
- I did not look into the library source code at all, so I can’t comment on the complexity of that.
Here is my take on some of the cons you list:
Expression of road objects are geometry driven. i.e.) geometry is not attribute of road objects, but object type is attribute of geometry. You cannot tell the object class unless you look into tags.
Can you elaborate on why that is a con? Does it make code more complicated, less efficient, etc?
Since all attributes are defined as optional tags, developers must be aware of what tags are present.
I don’t see this as an issue, there are validators that exist and can be extended to check for more things/tags.
Overall I agree with @msmcconnell’s hesitation to abandon lanelet2.
My suggestions would be to try to upstream as many improvements as we can back to lanelet2 with the support of the autoware community. If 20 github users from autoware comment on a feature request to make arm compilation easier, and open a PR to make it happen, I doubt they’d really want to decline it.