Skip to content

758 add guard rails and barriers as lane boundaries to osi#792

Open
ClemensLinnhoff wants to merge 9 commits into
devfrom
758-guard-rails-and-barriers-not-correctly-represented-in-osi
Open

758 add guard rails and barriers as lane boundaries to osi#792
ClemensLinnhoff wants to merge 9 commits into
devfrom
758-guard-rails-and-barriers-not-correctly-represented-in-osi

Conversation

@ClemensLinnhoff

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Guard rails are currently added to OSI as stationary objects. The problem is, that this way, they cannot have a height profile, so the guard rails will not follow the elevation of the road. A better way is to implement guard rails in OSI as lane boundaries.

There are some open points, that should be discussed:

  • Would it be possible to distinguish between a barrier and a guard rail, as these are separate types in OSI.
  • Currently the outline of a guard rail always goes to one side and then comes back, so I am taking only half the corner points. Is this generally correct?
  • The boundary points do not store the width of the barrier or guard rail. So in this PR, the width is set to a default value of 0.1 m. This would be fine for me, but maybe there is a smarter way to set a width.

Fixes #758

Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <clemens.linnhoff@persival.de>
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <clemens.linnhoff@persival.de>
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <clemens.linnhoff@persival.de>
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <clemens.linnhoff@persival.de>
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <clemens.linnhoff@persival.de>
@ClemensLinnhoff ClemensLinnhoff changed the title 758 guard rails and barriers not correctly represented in osi 758 add guard rails and barriers as lane boundaries to osi May 4, 2026
@eknabevcc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I pushed a rebased (on dev) variant of this branch: https://github.com/esmini/esmini/tree/feature/pr792

For future reference, please target dev branch. And avoid merging dev branch. Either just hand over that check to us, or do a rebase on your own (instead of merge). In the end the PR is rebased on dev anyway.

@ClemensLinnhoff

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

I pushed a rebased (on dev) variant of this branch: https://github.com/esmini/esmini/tree/feature/pr792

For future reference, please target dev branch. And avoid merging dev branch. Either just hand over that check to us, or do a rebase on your own (instead of merge). In the end the PR is rebased on dev anyway.

Can that branch be merged?

@eknabevcc

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

At first glance it seems like a good solution. Hadn't found time to investigate further yet, including synching with internal stakeholders.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants