Precise Cadastral Survey of Rural Buildings Based on Wall Segment Topology Analysis from Dense Point Clouds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My minor comments related to the manuscript are as follows;

1.    The abstract sets the stage for the paper by highlighting the importance of precise cadastral surveys. However, the abstract could be more concise and should explicitly state the main contributions of the proposed method. Similarly, the introduction is well-written but could benefit from a clearer outline of the challenges and the proposed solution. It is also important to introduce key terms like "cadastral survey" and "topology graph analysis" for readers who might not be familiar with the domain.

2.    The methodology section is detailed and includes several sub-sections, which is good for comprehensiveness. However, the text's organization could be improved to enhance readability.

3.    The evaluation and results section is crucial for validating the proposed method. However, the manuscript provides only a limited description of the dataset and evaluation metrics which can be provided in a detailed form.

4.    The section dedicated to discussion and limitations briefly touches on the shortcomings of the proposed method but could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the method's constraints. Detailed explanations of the limitations, should be provided in this section.

5.    The conclusion section summarizes the main findings but could be expanded to highlight the broader implications of the proposed method. The discussion of limitations and potential areas for improvement is somewhat brief. Expanding potential real-world applications, the relevance of accurate cadastral surveys, and the impact of the presented results should be added to this section.

6.    While the paper is technically comprehensive, it sometimes uses complex language and jargon that might be difficult for non-experts to understand. Simplifying the language would help improve the readability of the manuscript.

7.    Some basic grammatical and typo errors should be corrected using spell check using a word processor. Additionally, sentence structure and grammar could be refined in some areas to ensure clarity.

8.    On line 181, the reference is given with a question mark which should be checked and a related reference number should be added.

Some basic grammatical and typo errors should be corrected using spell check using a word processor. Additionally, sentence structure and grammar could be refined in some areas to ensure clarity.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the details in the attached files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article titled "Precise cadastral survey of rural buildings based on wall-segments topology analysis from dense point clouds" addresses the problem of automated cadastral measurements of rural buildings.
The main contributions of this research, as the authors state, are:
1) the non-maximum suppression of the projection points and multiple cues weighted RANSAC to ensure the accuracy and uniqueness of the wall locations, and
2) the analysis on the Wall Line-segments topology graph for the connecting and adjustment of wall-segment.

Suggestions/questions for the authors:
- The literature review could be extended. The provided review of alternative solutions for automated cadastral measurements is concise.
- The scientific communication is not fluent. The presentation of the proposed methods is not easy to follow. Some term names differ: in the Abstract, authors mention used metrics "detection integrity rate" and "accuracy rate," while in the Conclusion, they are called "completeness" and "detection rate". All the terms must be made coherent. Additionally, the related statements in the Abstract and Conclusion are not declaring the same: "detection integrity rate and accuracy rate can reach 84.9% and 93.2% when the mean square error is below 10cm." (line 12); "the detection rate can reach 93.2% correct and 84.9% complete for building corner points with a median error of about 10 cm." (line 310). The term "detection integrity rate" exists only in the Abstract.
- The evaluation of the proposed method is not compared to any other solutions. Evaluating the proposed improvements in the cadastral measurements workflow is difficult. At least the effect of the proposed improvements could be evaluated by comparing to the algorithm without the proposed improvements.
- The statement about data availability should be provided at the end of the article. Authors are encouraged to make the assembled dataset available publicly through well-known scientific data-sharing services.
- In Table 2. (Overall qualitative results of the proposed method), it is not clear what rows of the table present without referring to the text.
- Article needs careful editing: the expression "This paper detects the ..." (line 90) is not proper, "Data preparing" (possibly meaning "Data preparation"; Figure 1).

 

Author Response

Please  see the details in the attached files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

My questions were answered.