I think Lanelet2 is a good library as discussed in https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware/issues/1701.
I know and agree with this conclusion, but it doesn’t mean Lanelet2 the best.
It said just that Lanelet2 is better than Autoware Maps Format, and it was for Autoware.AI, NOT for Autoware.Auto.
We must accomplish the production level in Autoware.Auto, but I feel we can’t do it with Lanelet2(including Lanelet2 as backend).
Of course, we shouldn’t be in a hurry, we have to list up enough motivations to move to a new format.
However, I think we also need to consider for what reasons we continue to use Lanelet2.
I mean, we have to consider:
- What are the requirements for the map of Autoware.Auto?
- Does Lanelet2 meet the requirements, or can meet them at low cost?
- If not, how will we meet the requirements?
I believe this is the Maps WG’s mission.
Currently, I feel everybody is saying that “Lanelet2 looks good” just with their feelings, and that the core discussions are not taken place.
Let’s consider them more deeply together!
And as for a new format, I’d like to develop a prototype because we probably can’t judge good or bad without a concrete example.
I believe I can show you in a few weeks, so please give me feedback then.
It would be:
- GIS-based, which is more standard than OSM
- Easy to extend(probably than Lanelet2)
- OpenDRIVE subset(+ some extensions?)
and in the future, targeting:
- At least Lanelet2 equivalent libraries(e.g. geographic, routing)
- OpenDRIVE converter(at least, from OpenDRIVE)