[ros-users] Ranger (Sonar/IR) message added to sensor_msgs?

Tue Oct 5 04:36:24 UTC 2010

David,

We actually spent some time porting the marker available in nxt_rvz_plugin
when doing some of the work with breaking sonars out in Stage over the
weekend. Once there is a standardized message available in sensor_msgs, I
expect it will be quite straightforward to use the code in nxt_rviz_plugin
to add a plugin for the new message.

As for your comments regarding the spread angle, I suggest you take a look
at the proposed message on the review page - I expect the field_of_view
field is exactly what you are looking for. If you have any other comments, I
suggest adding them to that wiki page so that we can better record the
discussion.

- Eric

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:24 AM, David Feil-Seifer <
david.feilseifer at gmail.com> wrote:

> My $0.02, if such a message was added to the sensor_msgs pkg, the p2os
> stack would switch to it for its next release. One thing, though, is
> that rviz support for such a message should be added and that in
> addition to range (min,max) and distance (actual value) angle spread
> should be included. The sonar ranges on the pioneer have something
> like a 15 deg spread, while ir are a single beam of light with a
> rather narrow spread.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Eric Perko <wisesage5001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Everyone,
> > Thanks for the input and validating that I'm not the only person that
> would
> > like to see a message like this in ROS :).
> > I have put together an API review page
> > here
> http://www.ros.org/wiki/sensor_msgs/Reviews/2010-10-04_Ranger_Proposal_API_Review
>  .
> > This will cover the addition of a Ranger message to the sensor_msgs
> package.
> > If you have an interest in seeing a standardized Ranger message that can
> > support sonars and IR sensors included in ROS, I encourage you to
> > participate in this review. Please look over the proposed message and put
> > any comments in the "Question / concerns / comments" section in
> preparation
> > for the review meeting. I've scheduled review meeting via IRC chat for
> > Monday, Oct 11 at 4:15PM Eastern Time (1:15PM Pacific Time). This will be
> > held on #meeting.ros.org on freenode.net. If you do not have an IRC
> client,
> > http://webchat.freenode.net/ looks to be a decent web-based IRC client
> for
> > freenode.net.
> > - Eric
> > 2010/10/4 Gonçalo Cabrita <goncabrita at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Hi everyone!
> >> We've been following this discussion up-close since we have some Roombas
> >> equipped with sonars here at the lab. Plus the Roombas come with some
> neat
> >> IR sensors, meaning a Ranger msg would come very handy to us.
> >> And that's why we ended up creating a Ranger msg which we added to our
> >> installations of ROS a while back (sensor_msgs). Coming from Player, we
> got
> >> our inspiration for the Ranger msg from the Player Ranger interface.
> >> We actually created 2 msgs, RangerScan.msg and RangerScanArray.msg,
> since
> >> most of the times we have arrays of Sonars or IRs. We decided to put a
> >> header on each single ranger since an array of rangers might
> not always be
> >> neat and tidy with equal spacings between sensors.
> >> RangerScan.msg
> >> # Single scan from a single sonar
> >> Header header
> >>
> >> float32 field_of_view     # field of view of the sonar [rad]
> >> float32 range_min        # minimum range value [m]
> >> float32 range_max       # maximum range value [m]
> >> float32 range     # range data [m] (Note: values < range_min or >
> >> range_max should be discarded)
> >> RangerScanArray.msg
> >> # Single scan from an array of sonars
> >> RangerScan[] rangers
> >> I hope this can be of some contribution to this discussion,
> >> Gonçalo Cabrita
> >> ISR - University of Coimbra
> >> Portugal
> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Brian Gerkey <gerkey at willowgarage.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For reference, Player offers a ranger interface:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://playerstage.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/playerstage/code/player/trunk/libplayerinterface/interfaces/062_ranger.def
> >>> There are several message types defined there, because a Player
> >>> interface specifies a group of data, command, and/or configuration
> >>> messages (ROS doesn't have an analogous 'interface' concept).
> >>>
> >>> Probably the most relevant message from that interface is
> >>> player_ranger_data_rangestamped_t.  It contains the range data, and
> >>> optionally geometry and configuration information.  Some of that
> >>> information would be handled in ROS by tf.
> >>>
> >>> I recommend creating an API review in the sensor_msgs package
> >>> (http://www.ros.org/wiki/sensor_msgs/Reviews) to propose and discuss
> >>> the addition of a Ranger type.  The proposal should be clear about
> >>> what kind of range sensors are handled, e.g.: do the transducers have
> >>> the same origin? do they lie in the same plane?  It would also be a
> >>> good idea to provide converter nodes to go between existing "range"
> >>> messages and the new Ranger type; that way you avoid the expectation
> >>> that existing nodes, such as laser drivers, would quickly be updated
> >>> to support the Ranger type
> >>>
> >>>        brian.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Eric Perko <wisesage5001 at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > I'd like to ping the list to see if there are others that would
> benefit
> >>> > from
> >>> > a generic "Ranger" message being added to the sensor_msgs package and
> >>> > be
> >>> > interested in participating in a review process to get one added. An
> >>> > example
> >>> > use for this message type would be ultrasonic sensors or IR sensors.
> >>> > Current ROS messages similar to this (at least the ones I can find):
> >>> >
> >>> > nxt_msgs/Range
> >>> > (http://www.ros.org/doc/api/nxt_msgs/html/msg/Range.html)
> >>> > p2os has a SonarArray message that just contains a vector of ranges
> >>> > without
> >>> > min/max info or FOV angle info
> >>> >
> >>> > Information that I believe is sufficient for a range message (Note
> this
> >>> > is
> >>> > equivalent to the nxt_msgs/Range definition):
> >>> >
> >>> > Standard Header
> >>> > min/max range
> >>> > beam angle
> >>> > range reading
> >>> >
> >>> > Unless anyone needs more information in order to utilize a Sonar/IR
> >>> > ranger,
> >>> > I propose migrating the Range message from nxt_msgs to sensor_msgs.
> It
> >>> > would
> >>> > likely make sense to also migrate the RVIZ visualization marker for
> the
> >>> > ranger as well if the Range message was migrated.
> >>> > We are currently working on exposing the Ranger model in Stage to
> >>> > ROS and
> >>> > the message that is most appropriate is nxt_msgs/Range. I think we'd
> >>> > all
> >>> > agree that it doesn't make much sense for Stage to depend on
> nxt_msgs,
> >>> > so we
> >>> > need a message in the base ROS stacks to use.
> >>> > Open questions I have:
> >>> >
> >>> > Should we combine Sonars and IR sensors into one sensor_msgs/Ranger
> >>> > message
> >>> > or are they distinct enough to warrant completely separate messages?
> Is
> >>> > there enough of a difference to add some sort of type field
> enumerating
> >>> > the
> >>> > radiation used by the sensor (IR light, sound waves, etc)? I can see
> a
> >>> > use
> >>> > for knowing whether or not to expect the sensor to return from, say,
> >>> > glass,
> >>> > but that could also be taken care of out-of-band by knowing other
> info
> >>> > about
> >>> > the sensor.
> >>> > What to call the "beam angle"? nxt_msgs/Range calls it spread_angle,
> >>> > Stage
> >>> > calls it fov, and Sonar spec sheets often call it beam_angle. Is
> there
> >>> > any
> >>> > reason to prefer one over the other?
> >>> >
> >>> > Thoughts?
> >>> > - Eric
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > ros-users mailing list
> >>> > ros-users at code.ros.org
> >>> > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ros-users mailing list
> >>> ros-users at code.ros.org
> >>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ros-users mailing list
> >> ros-users at code.ros.org
> >> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-users mailing list
> > ros-users at code.ros.org
> > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20101005/84f85706/attachment-0003.html>