Investigation and Implementation of New Technology Wearable Mobile Laser Scanning (WMLS) in Transition to an Intelligent Geospatial Cadastral Information System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is reasonably well written and interesting to read. I did like the description of LIDAR SLAM algorithms. This being said the paper suffers from lack of balance. The LIDAR bit is not exactly new and was not invented by the authors. There work is described in less detail and without the clear message to the reader. I do believe that the results and conclusions need to be extended to describe what was done better.

Abstract – this is a strange sentence “There are dozens of human migrations around the world continuously, and the continuous construction in urban areas is increasing rapidly.”

L 20 the priority targets change to ‘ has to be a priority’

L39 “Soil and land management have been of great importance since the first period when 39 civilizations were established in the world” – change to “Soil and land management has been important since the dawn of urban planning.”

L139 is located

L162 – weather conditions

L162-168 – acronyms like GNSS need to be explained when first used

L203 there is something wrong with the last sentence in this paragraph

L336-340 This is not clear – I do not exactly understand how does it work

L341 – ‘the body part’ this is an unfortunate phrasing

Section 2.4 – I do not believe that giving equations for things such a distance is necessary – what is needed here is a concise summary of accuracy analysis findings.

Fig 7 the scale on the right needs description.

L451 ‘the produced 451 x-ray orthophoto map’ needs to be explained since this term is a bit questionable, or perhaps this is a cross section or a top view of the produced data

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There are a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings in the text, but overall it is understandable and conveys its intended meaning. However, the manuscript could benefit from some additional polishing to improve its clarity.

Additionally, a reference should be provided for the first sentence in line 97.

Figure 3 can be inferred from the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the authors contributed the following two important work

 

·       3D laser scanning data obtained from a portable sensor based on the SLAM algorithm, which is a relatively new approach for cadastral surveys in complex urban areas, is tested.

 

 

·       two different statistical comparisons and accurate analyses of the proposed methodology with reference data were made

 

Therefore, it is interesting and attractive. However, it should be major revised to enhance the quality, as follows:

 

1) In Section 1, authors should make three sub sections, motivation, contributions and organization of the paper

2) Literature review is missing , Pl add in section 2

3) A summary table should be provided for convenience for the readers in literature review section with comparison analysis of other approaches

4) Contributions of the research paper is limited, Pl at least three contributions should be there in any journal article

5) There should be one flow chart for overall work methodology.

6) Figure 2 should be re-presented. Moreover, all the parameters should be explain clearly .

7) Eq 3 and 4 are not derived properly, Pl explain it in details .

8)  All Figures should be enhanced at the resolution of 300 dpi.

9) In conclusion section, it should present the overall work clearly along with future research directions.

10) The authors should double-check all formation, typos, and writing throughout the paper.

11) In this manuscript , authors are used SLAM algorithm, pl compare this algorithm with other existing algorithm in a tabular structure

12) In section 2.4 accuracy analysis section, pl elaborate the eq no 3 and 4 in detail manner

13) In line 381, why it has taken Helmert orthometric heights  dH≤8 . Pl elaborate this.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

I would like to express my gratitude to you for the manuscript.

This study devoted to producing a 3D cadastral map with Wearable Mobile LiDAR Scanning (WMLS). Also, authors have analyzed the possibilities and limitations of the verification and modernization of the use of WMLS. Thus, the research provides both a scientific and a practical contribution. In my view, used data, methods, and sequence of study are completely described in the manuscript. Obtained results have enabled to produce 2D cadastral map. Moreover, authors have estimated WMLS data accuracy and concluded that accuracy ranging from 5 to 10 cm for the investigation of urban territory.

In general, the manuscript is an interesting paper with adequately described methods, results, important conclusions, and with recommendations for future researches. I would like to recommend accept this after minor revision (orthography and punctuation).

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors are addressed all the queries.