Research on Road Extraction Method Based on Sustainable Development Goals Satellite-1 Nighttime Light Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The paper was improved. The “discussion” section is now of some considerable value. Some additional comments include:

1_ Lines 68-70: Refine the objective statement, it presents duplication. Example: “Because of the limited experience on road extraction with the SDGSAT-01 NTL data, this paper aims to develop such a method and shed light on its particular feautures. Overall, it is expected that the results will assist government urban planning and monitoring.”

2_ Section 3.1 vs Figure 4: Please explain better what the criteria are (if any) for selecting this particular area for investigation.

3_ Still some language editing is needed, example the first sentence of lines 276-277.

Author Response

We appreciate your kind suggestions and we have amended the manuscript accordingly. In addition, the attached document is a response to your valuable questions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

My initial comments have been addressed. The authors are now asked to provide limitations in the developed approach (if any) and propose any future research directions. Overall, the paper has been amended.

Author Response

We appreciate your kind suggestions and we have amended the manuscript accordingly. In addition, the attached document is a response to your valuable questions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript described research conducted for mapping streets using nighttime satellite imagery.

The literature review is relevant to the topic and comprehensive enough. Some aspects of the methodology and validation need further explanation. The structure of the document needs some improvements (see comments below). The conclusions are somewhat supported by the results. The authors acknowledge the limitations of having tested their method in one case study only.

The text would benefit from English language proofread (grammar, text structure and consistency).

Line 94: It is unclear what the role of OSM data is. Accuracy verification only?

Line 98. Figure 2 requires detailed explanation in the text.

Line 164. It is not likely that other authors have confirmed the reliability of OSM in all geographic information worldwide in space and time. It would be enough if the authors could confirm its reliability and updated information on the date the data was collected.

What is the output of street extraction? A bitmap? A vectorial shapefile?

Line 262: As currently drafted, the conclusions seem not to belong to the same document as the rest of the text. More coherence among the text parts is needed. See comment concerning proofread.

Author Response

We appreciate your kind suggestions and we have amended the manuscript accordingly. In addition, the attached document is a response to your valuable questions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

While the authors have enhanced the description of the experiment according to my comments, I still believe that language issues have not been adequately addressed. The conclusions seem not to belong to the same text as the introduction and abstract. The first sentence of the conclusions should be either changed or removed.

The text does not seem to have undergone English proofread. Some examples:

The word "researches" must be shifted to "research studies" (lines 41, 68, 226).

"Imagery" is uncountable (line 246).

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. They are very valuable and helpful for us to improve the article. We have made extensive improvements to text editing. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and suits the journal’s scope. However, some issues need to be considered to improve the quality of the paper. The following comments are included:

1_ Many abbreviations are used. Please consider adding an abbreviation list at the end of the paper before the references.

2_ On the same context, it is the reviewer’s opinion to avoid using abbreviations in the title. Are there any other alternatives? The same might also apply for the keywords.

3_ Line 48: Citing too many references [5-16] without briefly explaining the pros and cons of the relevant studies seems insufficient for a scientific paper. Please revise.   

4_ Lines 70-72: Please explain better the motivation of the study. Who will be the end-user of the proposed approach? (e.g. roadway operators for an effective infrastructure management or something else…).

5_ Section 4 is too short. Please elaborate further. What are the limitations of the method (if any)?

6_ The style of references does not conform to MDPI template guidelines. Please refine.

Reviewer 2 Report

These are my comments for the authors:

1) Is the acronym SDGSAT well-established in the related field? If not, the title might change to avoid confusions.

2) In line 40, replace “roads” with “roadway pavements”.

3) It is not so usual to include multiple references within a sole statement; reconsider lines 47-48.

4) Provide references for the statement of lines 74-75.

5) The authors should give explanations about the criteria (if any) for selecting the three local areas claimed in line 196. What is the impact (if any) of each one road section selected on the accuracy of the proposed method.

6) In the discussion section, there is no discussion at all (there is only a simple description of the results). Consider either enriching this paragraph or merge it with the results section.

Overall, the study is well-structured, but the authors should make some necessary revisions before reconsideration.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposed a road extraction method using Band Operation and Marker-based Watershed Segmentation Algorithm. Although there are some merits in this study, it is still not convincing and I do not recommend publication

1. On the innovation and novelty of this study. The authors' great effort in performing this study is highly appreciated. However, the methods used in this study are regular and common. I do not find any innovative and novel design of this study. Then, what are the new findings differing from previous studies?

2. Why was the Chengguan District of Lhasa chosen as the study area? The approach should be evaluated over more areas with different environment to extract generalized findings.

3. The accuracy verification is too simple and the results are unconvincing.

4. Discussion section is too weak. This section must summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology employed by this study. Also, the new findings, uncertainty, and limitations should be elaborated.