An Automatic Counting Algorithm for Topographic Maps Based on Videos for Map Management
, Yuzhen Tian 1, Xiaochong Tong 2,*, Weiming Yang 3, Congzhou Guo 4, Jingwen Zhu 1, He Li 2 and Dali Wang 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Study Objectives should be clearly defined as clearly concluded in the conclusion
The statistical analysis and comparason with tradition method should be done instead of descript the results only
The conclusion should be clearly defind and compared in the results
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “An Automatic Counting Algorithm for Topographic Maps Based on Videos for Map Management” (ID: applsci-2081810). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in this manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments can be found in the appendix.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research article, "An Automatic Counting Algorithm for Topographic Maps Based on Videos for Map Management" seems to me interesting. However, I think that the following suggested points need to be incorporated in their article.
1. Authors are need to be specify the a set of topographic maps on which their algorithm have performed.
2. Is the size of mechanical wheel can change accuracy of the results? If yes then which size could be best.
3. How author can validate the accuracy in video based objects counting on topographical map? This needs to be explicitly explained.
4. Authors must explain the flowchart of the work, so, readers can easily understand the methods they have used one after another.
5. What is the benefits of this study that needs to explained carefully in separate section along other literature comparison.
6. Multiple algorithm authors have used for comparison of results? Why is it so? Why not more or less? As traditional DPM algorithm is showing better results then why anybody could opt FFP-DPM or, FFP-DPM-ROI.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “An Automatic Counting Algorithm for Topographic Maps Based on Videos for Map Management” (ID: applsci-2081810). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in this manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments can be found in the appendix.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Well done
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “An Automatic Counting Algorithm for Topographic Maps Based on Videos for Map Management” (ID: applsci-2081810). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in this manuscript. The revised manuscript is uploaded to the Submit Revised Manuscript section.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well revised. Congratulations.
