Advanced Techniques for Fast and Accurate Heritage Digitisation in Multiple Case Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents different methodologies for surveying cultural heritage and creating 3D models for documentation and preservation.
The process is not new but the methodology is well explained and suitable for the aim of the work.
The authors should explain better,maybe with an image, how they placed the GCP in the first survey because the position is unclear and maybe, if I understoof well, can be improved.
The authors shoul also explain better how they combined the different techniques in the final models.
It can be interesting to know if the authors think about using these models also for comunication and for other porpuses as VR.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Lines 27-32: This introduction effectively acquaints reviewers with the subject of the article. However, might it also be worth mentioning purposeful destruction of historic sites (e.g. by ISIL in Syria and the Middle East)? That could help the generalizability of the study.
Lines 82-86: This is a good place to describe why digitized heritage preservation matters -- what it accomplishes for the local community, academic audience, or the world.
Lines 130-143: Excellent overview of the Añana Salt Valley's relevance.
Lines 218-255: These passages effectively combine a discussion of the region's heritage with an explanation of why this kind of work matters. Information such as this is the real "meat" of the paper.
Lines 328-337: Strong explanation of why historic preservation matters. Some of this reasoning would be helpful for the introduction or abstract.
Lines 569-571: The introduction of virtual reality is fascinating. You might mention this as an area for further research later.
Lines 758-765: This would be an ideal place to discuss the purpose of heritage digitization. What end does it serve? Renovation? How does it meet some public or academic need?
This is a suggestion, but might is also be worth noting the political context of heritage preservation and destruction? The piece hints at this with discussions of changing building use over time, but efforts of governments to destroy or preserve heritage might also be worth mentioning.
Line 19: remove "etc"
Line 27: "the world saw" -- can the world really see anything? Odd phrase.
Line 47: "from what is needed" -- passive voice, which occurs throughout the article. I am not an architect, so perhaps passive voice is more prevalent in that discipline, but it is less common in academic vernacular.
Line 99: "it is also cautions" -- grammatically incorrect
Line 383: does "Own activity" mean owner activity? Unclear.
Line 436: "avatars" is an odd word choice.
Line 758: "In conclusion" is overwrought.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
