Currently, users must create a separate path between work areas, even when those areas directly touch each other.
I would like Yarbo to automatically recognize when two areas share a boundary and allow travel between them without requiring a manually created path. When transitioning between adjacent areas, Yarbo could cross at any point along the shared boundary, selecting the most efficient location based on its current position and route.
An additional benefit would be obstacle avoidance. If Yarbo’s preferred crossing point is temporarily blocked by a vehicle, person, equipment, or other obstacle, it could simply choose another accessible point along the shared boundary instead of stopping or requiring a predefined path.
This would simplify map creation, reduce setup time, eliminate unnecessary connector paths, and make navigation between adjacent areas more reliable and flexible across all Yarbo modules and tasks.
I would caution that I think this would be fine for overlapping areas, but not boundaries that are merely close or touching. I’d much rather define a boundary crossing area for that situation but an overlapping area should be easily justified to be safe to cross at any point in the overlap.
I have been trying to come up with a time where crossing from area a to area b at any point would be a bad thing. If both perimeters are overlapped slightly so all of that area will be mowed, the places that you would have an issue with crossing would have a no go zone, right? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean or just I just don’t have any of these instances in my yard.
I think it’s the latter here. Another example might be a thin fence where the boundary lines might slightly touch and with the change in algorithms, it may think “oh this touching part is safe” and then run into a fence. Could also be on hills/slopes/small valleys/wash outs/etc and crossing at this angle could be less than optimal or put the unit into track slippage, but is fine running parallel along the boundary for the perimeter passes, but perpendicular to the boundary is dangerous. Yes you could possibly put a NGZ here, but they have a minimum size and will also change the mowing pattern around it. Which if it’s a wash out/ravine or something that might be worse because it’s doing risky maneuvers around the NGZ instead of just driving straight.
@bryan.wheeler nailed it. The breakup of my areas is partially determined by slopes and hazards. Unrestricted crossing could be very bad. Another approach might be a to draw a line in overlaps (similar to trimming selections). Random crossing would be permitted anywhere along that line.
Another good and obvious real world example would be two grass cutting areas in your front yard. They are zone 1 and zone 2. In between them is your driveway. The driveway is also a zone, but only for snowblowing.
It would be bad for Yarbo to randomly drive through the driveway to get from zone 1 to zone 2, potentially running into cars and other things along the way.
The desire would be for Yarbo to only traverse the driveway via a pre-established pathway that is known to be safe.
