feat: first draft proposal implementation for handling invalid lanelets

[ahmeddesokyebrahim]

Related Links

Discussion

• Discussion Link

Issue

• Issue Link

Relevant PRs

• autoware_documentation ✔️
• autoware_common - part I ✔️
• autoware_common - part II ✔️
• autoware_adapi_msgs ✔️
• autoware_launch ✔️
• autoware_universe - part I ✔️
• autoware_universe - part II ✔️
• tier4/tier4_autoware_msgs - part II ✔️
• tier4/tier4_ad_api_adaptor

Notes for reviewers

For compiling and testing this PR, all PRs in related links section need to be taken into consideration.

Notes for reviewers

For compiling and testing this PR, all PRs in related links section need to be taken into consideration.

❗ Merge sequence can be found here ❗

Description

This PR is one of group of PRs for providing a solution for the idea discussed here.

Remarks

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

PR Author should check the checkboxes below when creating the PR.

• Code is properly formatted
• Assign PR to reviewer

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

Reviewers should check the checkboxes below before approval.

• Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
• Code is properly formatted
• PR title describes the changes

Post-Review Checklist for the PR Author

PR Author should check the checkboxes below before merging.

• All open points are addressed and tracked via issues or tickets
• Write release notes

CI Checks

• Build and test for PR: Required to pass before the merge.
• Check spelling: NOT required to pass before the merge. It is up to the reviewer(s). See here if you want to add some words to the spell check dictionary.

[isamu-takagi]

I think a name that means it is not included in ODD would be better. I could not imagine the background of the discussion from the name INVALID_LANELET.

[ahmeddesokyebrahim]

I think a name that means it is not included in ODD would be better. I could not imagine the background of the discussion from the name INVALID_LANELET.

Thanks Mr @isamu-takagi for your comment.

When I presented this idea first time at ASWG, I was proposing it as invalid or out of ODD as mentioned in the discussion. During the meeting some colleagues commented that the naming of out of ODD is very wide and may include a lot of meanings. ODD may include road types, driving scenario types, speed limits, weather condition, .... any many other examples.

That is went for naming with invalid rather than out of ODD .

[isamu-takagi]

That is went for naming with invalid rather than out of ODD .

@ahmeddesokyebrahim
I got it. It's fine If agreed in the ASWG, but personally I get the impression that it's detected an error in the lanelet map definition.

[yukkysaito]

LGTM