The Impact of Historic Underground Buildings on Land Use

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper the use of TLS (Terrestrial Laser Scanner) technique for the surveying of historic underground buildings is described. The obtained 3D point cloud, integrated with cadastral and urban planning maps, can be useful as a reference for the documentation and preservation of the tunnels, for land disputes and in general for all operations involving the urban fabric.

In this manuscript, in my opinion, too much space is dedicated to the description of the well-known and established lidar technique and little to what in the described research is really interesting.

The 2.3 paragraph for example could be eliminated. Instead, greater emphasis should be given to the peculiarities of an object like the one surveyed, explaining in more detail what problems were encountered in data acquisition and how they were resolved.

Underground tunnels are common in many urban scenarios, but their peculiarities are many and make them difficult to explore, inspect and survey: they are confined spaces, often dangerous for humans; they present a difficult accessibility and a complex morphology, with narrow spaces, complex plan and poor lighting conditions; besides, their elongated and repetitive geometry, make them particularly “unlucky” cases to provide accurate and reliable 3D measurements, because of the error propagation that may occur in the alignment of the scans. For such reasons, the establishment of a reliable control geodetic network is fundamental, for two main aims: to check the alignment of the scan data and to give a reference coordinate frame to all the acquired data, key factor in the described application where the acquired data were then integrated with other cartographic maps.

These aspects in the paper are only mentioned (see lines 252 - 258), but should be described more carefully.

A few specific comments:

-            Figures 7-11 are similar and redundant

-            Figure 13 has an error in the caption

-            Figure 14 does not make much sense, at least a scale bar should be added.

Otherwise, the paper is well written and structured. The bibliography should be enriched a bit.

Author Response

Comments 1: Too much space is dedicated to the description of the well-known and established lidar technique and little to what in the described research is really interesting.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with it. Therefore, following your suggestion, I deleted section 2.3 and supplemented the information on the issues encountered during data collection and how these issues were resolved. You can find my revised content on page 4, line 155.

Comments 2: These aspects in the paper are only mentioned (see lines 252 - 258), but should be described more carefully.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with it. Following your suggestion, I attempted to describe the paragraph in more detail. You can find my revised content on page 8, line 243. 

Comments 3: Figures 7-11 are similar and redundant.
Response 3: Following your suggestion, but I kept Figures 7 and 8 because they include the entry and exit sections.You can see the retained images on page 8 (Figures 7 and 8).

Comments 4: Figure 13 has an error in the caption.
Response 4: Thank you for your reminder, I have identified the issue. However, this paragraph has undergone significant revisions and new images have been created. Please refer to page 8, line 262, paragraph 3.2.

Comments 5: Figure 14 does not make much sense, at least a scale bar should be added.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. Your reminder prompted me to review all the images in the article, including the ones you mentioned. Accordingly, I have added a north arrow to the incomplete maps and placed a scale legend on the necessary images. You can see the newly created image on page 9, Figure 11.

Comments 6: The bibliography should be enriched a bit.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. I have searched for more relevant literature and incorporated it into the revisions. You can see the updated reference list on pages 14 and 15.

Thank you for your invaluable suggestions and assistance with this article. I am deeply grateful for your support. If you have any further recommendations, I would greatly appreciate your guidance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research proposal presented in the paper shows the relationship between cadastre technology and its functionality in the heritage context. However, the paper has many problems regarding its development: many of the citations do not have a reference or source (see paragraphs 25, 47, 57, 68, 95, and 154 among others). A thorough review of the state of the art regarding using these methodologies in heritage contexts is required.

Figure 1, a map, has no coordinates, nor are the diagrams presented. Figure 2 is not suitable for presentation in a paper, nor is it mentioned in the references. There are some plans that have north, others do not appear with the same information.

The process for using presentation software (AutoCAD) is never mentioned in the methodology. It is presented in a very simple way, without providing more data that allows the replicability of these actions.

The conclusions make assertions that cannot be verified with the development of the work carried out: see line 357.

Author Response

Comments 1: Many of the citations do not have a reference or source (see paragraphs 25, 47, 57, 68, 95, and 154 among others). A thorough review of the state of the art regarding using these methodologies in heritage contexts is required.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing that out. Incorporating your suggestions, I have revised many paragraphs and added citations. You can see these changes on page 1, line 25, and on page 2, lines 47 to 69 of the article.

Comments 2: Figure 1, a map, has no coordinates, nor are the diagrams presented.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing that out. This was a serious oversight. We have since recreated the image and provided coordinates for reference. You can see the newly created image (Figure 1) on page 3.

Comments 3: Figure 2 is not suitable for presentation in a paper, nor is it mentioned in the references.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. I agree with your perspective, and therefore, I have removed the image.

Comments 4: There are some plans that have north, others do not appear with the same information.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. Your reminder prompted me to review all the images in the article, including the ones you mentioned. Accordingly, I have added a north arrow to the incomplete maps. You can see these updates on page 3 (Figure 1), page 7 (Figure 6), page 8 (Figure 9), page 9 (Figure 11), page 10 (Figures 12 and 13), and page 13 (Figures 18 and 19). 

Comments 5: The process for using presentation software (AutoCAD) is never mentioned in the methodology. It is presented in a very simple way, without providing more data that allows the replicability of these actions.
Response 5: Thank you for your guidance. In response, I have added a description of the process of attaching the point cloud to CAD and included an image showing the point cloud attached to CAD.Please refer to page 8, line 262, paragraph 3.2, and the image on page 9 (Figure 10).

Comments 6: The conclusions make assertions that cannot be verified with the development of the work carried out: see line 357.
Response 6: Thank you for your guidance. I agree with your perspective that such a conclusion requires further discussion. Accordingly, I have revised my conclusion. You can find the revised content on page 14, line 347.

Thank you for your invaluable suggestions and assistance with this article. I am deeply grateful for your support. If you have any further recommendations, I would greatly appreciate your guidance.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors met the comments and suggestions indicated in the review.

The paper has improved in structure and quality of presentation. In its current state it deserves the publication.

I indicated "minor revision" because some punctuation errors and some unclear sentences remain in the text, especially in the figures captions. I therefore recommend a careful check of the whole text.

Author Response

Comments 1: I therefore recommend a careful check of the whole text.
Response 1: Thank you for your kind guidance, and I revisited the details of my article to make sure the punctuation was used correctly. If you want to know where to make modifications, you can find them below.

Page 2, lines 62, 69, 
page 3, line 102 (caption for picture 1), 
page 9, line 271 (caption for picture 10), 
page 10, line 304 (caption for picture 15), 
page 13, line 333, description of table 1 and table item titles.

At the same time, I found that the font is not uniform and has corrected it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments made have been addressed and incorporated into the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your advice and recognition, I am very grateful.