Skip to content

WIP: Added BaseTrajectory messages definition in trajectory_msgs for mobile base trajectory following #281

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: rolling
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ahsanyusob
Copy link

Hi,

I’m proposing two new messages, BaseTrajectory and BaseTrajectoryPoint, to the trajectory_msgs package. These are designed for planning the trajectory of mobile robot bases, rather than joints.

  • BaseTrajectory: A sequence of trajectory points that the robot base should follow over time.
  • BaseTrajectoryPoint: A single point in the trajectory, specifying the target pose, velocity, and acceleration.

These should be useful for trajectory or path-following controllers in mobile robots. Let me know what you think!

Copy link
Contributor

@tfoote tfoote left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you explain what you're tying to do differently than the MultiDOFJointTrajectory? This appears to be basically a new version of that except that it can only capture one "joint" at a time.

And you've added names for points along the trajectory. Can you explain why you're adding names to all the points? Trajectories are typically quite dense without names for each point along the trajectory as they're rapidly sampled in time.

@wjwwood wjwwood added the more-information-needed Further information is required label May 22, 2025
@ahsanyusob
Copy link
Author

Hi, I’m looking for something similar to nav_msgs/Path to define a mobile base trajectory relative to the map, but with stamped desired speed (and acceleration) at each trajectory point. It’s similar to MultiDOFJointTrajectory, except that it’s intended for a single rigid body or mass point moving in local 3D space.

You are right about the name. Initially, I considered linking each trajectory point name to a waypoint/node from the topological map, but as I worked further on it, I realized that this doesn’t make sense, since the trajectory doesn’t necessarily follow the nodes exactly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
more-information-needed Further information is required
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants