Exact type classification of minivan unclear

[johschmitz]

In

open-simulation-interface/osi_object.proto

Lines 868 to 871 in 689eab7

	// \note Corresponds roughly with UNECE [1] categories M2 and N1.
	//
	// \note This category is not intended for mini vans, which shall
	// rather be categorized as cars.

it is mentioned that a minivan shall be classified as a car, but not exactly which car type shall be used.

Describe the bug

In

open-simulation-interface/osi_object.proto

Lines 868 to 871 in 689eab7

	// \note Corresponds roughly with UNECE [1] categories M2 and N1.
	//
	// \note This category is not intended for mini vans, which shall
	// rather be categorized as cars.

it is mentioned that a minivan shall be classified as a car, but not exactly which car type shall be used.

Describe how to reproduce the bug

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Read the documentation

Describe the expected behavior

One explicitly defined class for minivans such as TYPE_CAR

Show some screenshots

N.A.

Describe the OS you are using

N.A.

Additional context

Additionally, I expect that this will cause a lot of unnecessary issues when checking sensor output against ground truth since the vehicle perception systems will have a very hard time deciding between a car type minivan and other vans. After all the shape is the main decision criteria, since the perception system has no direct access to vehicle weight information and other details used for the UNECE classification.

I think a) this needs to be re-considered and b) at least one explicit category for minivans needs to be defined if it stays like this.

My personal recommendation would be to losen this and allow this category to be used for minivans as well. Additionally, we should cross-check whether another UNECE classification or ISO norm more related to ADAS/AD/DCAS/Sensors etc. can be used as a reference instead of the one that has been used.

[pmai]

it is mentioned that a minivan shall be classified as a car, but not exactly which car type shall be used.

Since all other types are deprecated, only TYPE_CAR remains, so currently there is no ambiguity, and the specific wording is BTW part of the harmonized ASAM enum definition, hence any change would require a change there (which would be hard to do, as the different classifications in different standards have different specific syntax for the car classification).

Since all of this is centered around fully harmonized definitions, any discussion would need to happen in the harmonization groups, as OSI cannot single-handedly deviate here.

I also already pointed out in the OpenSCENARIO discussion that e.g. sensor standards like ISO 23150 do not have any finer-granular required classifications, which is unsurprising, since for most purposes the distinction between "a car" and "a minivan" is as useful as the distinction between "a car" and "a cabrio", "a coupe". Based on size, usually there are cut-offs that will keep most "carish" things as CAR, and something that is clearly much larger in the TYPE_VAN category. Whether what something that is coloquially termed "minivan" then ends up in the TYPE_CAR or TYPE_VAN category depends on the size of the things, which differ wildly (e.g. the Peugeot 1007 can colloquially be termed a mini-van with just 3.7m length and 1.6m height, just as a Renault Espace is commonly termed a minivan, which is nearly 5m in length and 1.8m in height, or the Plymouth Grand Voyager).

As discussed there, if more shape-centered classifications are wanted/needed, these can of course be designed, but again this needs to be a harmonized thing across OpenX standards.

[johschmitz]

To resolve this for now in a pragmatic way I created #910