WIP: Introduce PedestrianClassification

[clemenshabedank]

Reference to a related issue in the repository

Discussion in WP11.

Add a description

Added pedestrian classification to have head pose and upper body pose in sensorview and sensordata. So far it exists only in SensorData so that it is unclear where sensor models should get the information from.
Should be currently seen as a discussion point in WP11 -> WIP

Some questions to ask:
What is this change?
What does it fix?
Is this a bug fix or a feature? Does it break any existing functionality or force me to update to a new version?
How has it been tested?

Take this checklist as orientation for yourself, if this PR is ready for the Change Control Board:

• My suggestion follows the style and contributors guidelines.
• I have taken care about the documentation.
• I have done the DCO signoff.
• My changes generate no errors when passing CI tests.
• I have successfully implemented and tested my fix/feature locally.
• Appropriate reviewer(s) are assigned.

If you can’t check all of them, please explain why.
If all boxes are checked or commented and you have achieved at least one positive review, you can assign the label ReadyForCCBReview!

[dbeckerAC]

Does this imply that the BaseMoving orientation value of the moving object describes the pedestrian's lower body pose? And if that's the case, do we need to state that somewhere?

[clemenshabedank]

Good question, we should discuss it. What about defining it in the direction of prior movement? Lower body pose I find a bit problematic, because hard to define and maybe not so meaningful. I think we should also be able to assist usecases that just model the pedestrian as a moving bounding box, which might prefer the direction-of-prior-movement option. What do you think?

[clemenshabedank]

Comment Kmeid: Host vehicle frame correct or sensor frame?

[clemenshabedank]

@kmeids the description for detected pedestrians currently is:

Describes the head orientation w.r.t. the host vehicle orientation.

Indeed, I think sensor frame is better (i.e. physical mounting position / mounting position, depending on sensor technology), but after thinking about it I think it is redundant because it is specified in OSI::SensorView. Therefore, I deleted the sentences about coordinate systems in 5089639

[stefancyliax]

OSI CCB:

• Another possible topic for 3.4
• @clemenshabedank please look at CI. Broken for now.

[clemenshabedank]

Despite originally planned, I think it is better to plan this for v4.0. Clarification on a pedestrian's bounding box does not seem trivial for different use cases. Merge discussions with #526 going forward.

[kmeids]

@stefancyliax. @clemenshabedank based on #498 (comment) it is meant to be handled in 4.0, is this still the case?

[stefancyliax]

You are correct. This is supposed to be in 4.0

[clemenshabedank]

Just so that it won't be lost, here are some brainstorming slides 20210611_ASAM_OSI_Pedestrians.pptx about the pedestrian discussions we had in 06/2021 and before. The discussions were about potential changes going beyond what is in this PR.