Changing the map engine (and supporting 3D maps)

[rafaellehmkuhl]

Today we are using Leaflet as our map engine. It is probably the most used lib for map displaying in the world, has a lot of documentation and is relatively easy to work with, but it has some caveats, with the most relevant one being the fact that it doesn't support 3D maps (terrain elevation).

Supporting 3D maps is not something that is holding us today, as our focus is on the ROV and the Boat. For the Boat, elevation doesn't change things, as it is always in a plain body of water, and for the ROV it would be interesting if we had underwater 3D maps, which are not that common, but if we plan to attract aerial users, this is a must.

There are different alternatives out there that support 3D, like Cesium, Mapbox and MapLibre.

Opening the discussion so we can have more info in advance when starting that work.

[ES-Alexander]

For the Boat, elevation doesn't change things, as it is always in a plain body of water

I would push back on this, for three reasons:

1. Sometimes geometry can be above the water (like a pier) which could still be useful to show during an inspection (and/or when planning for one)
2. A major value of 3D mapping is the data involved (not just the vehicle's operating domain)
   • Consider visualisation of point clouds / terrain surface maps generated from a sonar, or a sensor on a winch, or photogrammetry or a lidar above the boat (e.g. in a partially submerged cave)
3. Water is not always at a consistent level even if it is often quite flat during operation
   • Differing tides can change where to point a camera, or how horizontally close a pass can be made with a sidescan sonar while still capturing an object of interest (like a shipwreck at a known location)
   • Two scans of the same location should ideally have comparable data, and if tides or dam levels or the like are involved that may require some vertical offset compensation to account for

In an extreme case of all 3, a boat may be sent down a mountain river, in which case it could be valuable to visualise its sensor readings localised to the full position (altitude included), not just horizontally

---

I would note that 3D-capable maps may come with a performance penalty to use, and aren't necessary for every use-case. Ideally we will continue supporting 2D as a standard option, but I do think we also want to empower users to enable 3D if and when they would benefit from the functionalities it provides.

[rafaellehmkuhl]

Agree on everything!

Specially the tides and data part.

And talking with our internal users there is a clear expectation for it to happen at some point.