On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Advait Jain wrote: > Hi Ken, > > I can see these top-level wiki pages being really useful. > > How does one decide that a particular subject has the critical mass to > warrant a top-level page? > > For example, I can imagine a page on actuators (similar to what I > Heart Robotics and others have done for Sensors). > > This could include ROS packages to control servos, pan tilt units etc., such as > http://www.ros.org/wiki/ptu46 > http://www.ros.org/wiki/amtec > http://www.ros.org/wiki/robotis > http://www.ros.org/wiki/ax12_controller_core The Sensors page is a result of I Heart Robotics proposing, championing, and putting it together. If you're willing to do the same for Actuators, it would be a fantastic contribution. Would you include stock manipulators as well? Right now manipulators are indexed on the Robots page, but there may be better overlap with actuators (e.g. crustcrawler). - Ken > > Advait > > > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Ken Conley wrote: >> Hi Chad, >> >> These are good points.  I encourage you to look as several of the new >> top-level pages the community has added to the wiki in the past year >> and suggest specific ways/areas they could be improved further.  These >> pages include: >> >> Library/functionalities: >> http://www.ros.org/wiki/APIs >> >> Sensors: >> http://www.ros.org/wiki/Sensors >> >> Robot-specific landing pages: >> http://www.ros.org/wiki/Robots >> >> Tools: >> http://www.ros.org/wiki/Tools >> >> It's really the robot-specific landing pages I'm most excited about >> and think the community can contribute the most to.  I'm hoping that >> the pages like: >> >> http://www.ros.org/wiki/Robots/NXT >> >> will be a place where NXT users can start answering more specific "how >> do I do X with my robot" questions. >> >> One of the reasons we are focused on TurtleBot is it is simply too >> difficult to provide a generic "here are cool libraries" without >> understanding what hardware the person is using, i.e. "navigation" has >> a very different meaning if I have a Create, AscTec quadrotor, or >> autonomous car. >> >> cheers, >> Ken >> >> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jenkins, Odest Chadwicke >> wrote: >>> Hi Ken, >>> >>> I think you make a very good point about developing a teleop_mobile >>> stack.  That would certainly be a welcomed contribution.  I also agree >>> that asking Willow to take this on is not the best use of time and >>> effort. >>> >>> A larger point I am making is that we are starting to see more >>> reinvention and refragmentation among the efforts of the ROS >>> community.  I would attribute this circumstance to the lack of a >>> global picture of ROS that people (new and established) in ROS can >>> understand.  We often have to climb up the learning curve by scouring >>> the more detail-oriented content of the wiki and various repositories. >>>  This could be a dealbreaker for many types of people we would like to >>> bring into the ROS community: app-level developers, people who design >>> systems with usability and value in mind, etc. >>> >>> I think the answer to Brice's question (and similar questions) should >>> be more obvious.  By an order of magnitude, ROS has been a great >>> contribution to robotics, as an applications-layer protocol, message >>> structure, and development environment.  However, ROS is still very >>> far from enabling robots to provide value for real users and app >>> developers.  More guidance from the ROS leadership as well as >>> discussion with the current ROS community would help in broadening the >>> ROS community in the future. >>> >>> (Brice, apologies for the threadjacking) >>> >>> -Chad >>> >>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ken Conley wrote: >>>> If someone was willing to coordinate/maintain a "teleop_mobile" stack, >>>> we would happily accept/anoint it.  As Brian notes, the difficulty is >>>> in ensuring that such a 'general' teleoperation package generically >>>> controls a variety of robots.  We would not be able to do such a stack >>>> ourselves (at least for Electric) as our post-ICRA todo list is a bit >>>> too much right now. >>>> >>>> It sounds like there are (at least) two good starting points for >>>> packages to include.  For keyboard, the stack that Chad mentions: >>>> >>>> http://www.ros.org/wiki/teleop_twist_keyboard >>>> >>>> And for joystick, we have our teleoperation package we use with the TurtleBot: >>>> >>>> http://www.ros.org/wiki/turtlebot_teleop >>>> >>>> The joystick case is a bit more difficult as you also have to >>>> parameterize a bit on the joystick. >>>> >>>> Our expectation for a maintainer would be to coordinate the community >>>> to get good documentation in place, and also coordinate with the >>>> community to test across multiple robot bases. >>>> >>>>  - Ken >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Jenkins, Odest Chadwicke >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Brice, >>>>> >>>>> I believe you are correct in that base movement control has been >>>>> reinvented several times over in ROS.  We wrote our own a while back, >>>>> but there are probably other quality movement controllers across the >>>>> ROS space: >>>>> >>>>>  http://www.ros.org/wiki/teleop_twist_keyboard >>>>> >>>>> teleop_twist_keyboard was based on the old playerjoy utility from >>>>> Player, which includes a stop command and has limited handling of key >>>>> press/release events.  We often use teleop_twist_keyboard for the >>>>> Create, AR.Drone, and PR2 (as in the following video): >>>>> >>>>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-9sDNnGtIs >>>>> >>>>> I think your post is great reminder that the ROS community could >>>>> benefit from a clearer organization of packages, messages, and >>>>> functionality in ROS.  Such a clear organization does not seem likely >>>>> to happen organically without some guidance from the ROS leadership. >>>>> >>>>> -Chad >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ros-users mailing list >>>>> ros-users@code.ros.org >>>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >>>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ros-users mailing list >> ros-users@code.ros.org >> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >> > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users >