Discontinuity Recognition and Information Extraction of High and Steep Cliff Rock Mass Based on Multi-Source Data Fusion
and Haoyu Tai 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting article. The algorithms used are quite inspiring. I think there is potential in this method. You can multi-source point cloud fusion try to apply to other areas. However, the presentation of the results leaves a lot to be desired.
In the abstract, there is no need to describe the exact location of the rocks taken for example. This is important in the body of the article.
There are times when the sentences are so extensive that they are difficult to understand, e.g. in lines 253-258.
Did the caption of Figure 5 really mean 'drawing flowers'?
The article is in English, and all descriptions in the pictures must be in this language. Particularly incomprehensible is the histogram legend of Figure 8. Unintelligible are the descriptions of the axes in Figure 10. Please replace the Chinese markings with English wherever they occur or drop them where they are not relevant.
Figure captions can be found on the next page.
The article is in a journal read by representatives of various scientific disciplines unfamiliar with the conventions used in surveying. The importance of colours in HSV rendering should be explained.
The presentation of results is clearer if the same object in the same projection and aspect ratio is present in the images being compared - e.g. Figure 7, Figure 11, Figure 13 a, c, d.
Major changes are needed in Figure 11. I do not see in this figure what is written in 340-350. The authors indicate colours that are difficult to see in the figure. The drawing needs a legend with colour indications. This also applies to HSV colour rendering.
Figure 13a should have the colours explained, as I have already mentioned. Figure 13c has different colours than Figure 13b. They should be the same so that there is no doubt in the interpretation. The brown colour appears on it, which is not present in the Figure 13b diagram. Figure 13d should show the object in the same projection as Figure 13a and c.
Please make an effort to present your results properly, as I would like to see this article published. Please also take care with the correct language. I do not feel competent to point out errors, but I have found a few.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with a very interesting and topical subject, but formally I find a number of shortcomings. First of all, Figures 1 and 2, where the captions are in Chinese characters, need to be completely revised. This is not acceptable in an international journal. The caption of Figure 1(b) says Study Site map, but it is an oblique aerial photograph. Figure 2, Regional topography and geomorphology map, does not show the geomorphology of the area or where it is located (again with Chinese characters), and the map has no base and it is not possible to locate the site. Furthermore, on page 4, I missed a description of the scanner used, especially the range and density of the points, and also some map of the habitats from where the scanning took place. Figure 5.(a) shows the errors caused by incorrect alignment of the data. However, there is no further mention of how this was corrected. If these errors were at the top of the cliff, then they could not be corrected based on the scanner data. In section 3.3 Multi-source point cloud fusion, control points are mentioned but the total number of these points is not given. Figure 6.(left) is not clear enough. For chapter 4. Intelligent identification and information extraction of rock discontinuities, I do not have significant comments, but I am not clear about the accuracy assessment as it was done (especially the field survey). Discussion and comparison of the results with similar studies is completely lacking in the paper.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the authors have carefully reworked the text and figures according to my comments, I still have reservations, especially about the lack of discussion. I ask for additions and comparisons with similar studies.
Author Response
please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
