Progressive Collapse of Dual-Line Rivers Based on River Segmentation Considering Cartographic Generalization Rules
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Collapse of areal rivers (i.e., dual-line reivers in this paper) on maps is an old topic in map generalization, but progressive collapse is basically new and worth studying. I can understand the method presented in this paper; however, a number of revisions are needed before it is published.
1. The first paragraph of Section 1 (lines 26-37) is not that necessary. It can be greatly simplified to directly focus on the title of the paper.
2. Why is progressive collapse necessary in dual-line reiver generalization? This is not clearly discussed in lines 52-54 though it is mentioned. Because progressive collapse is a keyword appearing in the title of the paper, it should be explained before you start to discuss your methods.
3. In section 2, your related work includes two parts. It is OK. But I hope you give a simple explanation on why the two parts but not others are the related work of this study.
4. At the beginning of section 3 Methodology a flowchart of the method is given. It’s OK. But at the following subsections I cannot see the relations of them with the framework. Thus. I suggest the logic of the subsections (i.e., the process of the proposed method) be presented in subsection 3.1 in detail so that readers can more easily to understand the method.
5. Some very new papers are not cited, such as
Courtial, A., Touya, G. & Zhang, X. Constraint-Based Evaluation of Map Images Generalized by Deep Learning. J geovis spat anal 6, 13 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-022-00104-2;
Staněk, K., Šilhák, P. & Ryglová, A. A Graphical Generalization of Localized Morphological Discontinuities on Medium-Scale State Topographic Maps. J geovis spat anal 6, 20 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-022-00112-2
6. There are many wording and grammar errors. I suggest this paper be edited by a professional English editing agency or a native language speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents an interesting and new approach to the Collapse algorithm in cartographic generalisation based on large-scale representations and vector spatial data. The authors of the study focus on the transformation of river sections and the progressive collapse of bilinear rivers. Unfortunately, the article contains very poor scientific conclusions. There are many methodological errors and conclusions that are not supported by the purpose of the article. Before recommending this manuscript for publication at MDPI, I would like to point out a number of improvements that the authors should consider in the revised version:
Introduction:
1) Lines 27-29 - > Why is the text limited to showing the map scale for Chinese only? Is it not an international problem, and would it not be better to deal with many cases than just one?
2) Lines 38-59 - > there are many top-down statements about the properties of river generalisation, without any presentation of the basics of the literature confirming the authors' words.
3) Lines 53-58 - > it would be worth mentioning other algorithms used in river generalisation to emphasise why this choice is important.
Research goal and questions:
1) I miss a clear message of the article. No main objective is presented. After reading the text, I felt like I had read the cartographic generalisation algorithm manual. As a result, there is no clear reference to the research findings in most of the text. The Conclusions chapter lacks a clear message of the article, as the conclusions cited do not refer to whether the authors of the study succeeded in achieving the main goal of the article with the results.
Related work:
1) Lines 79-83 - > the authors once again describe a phenomenon that occurs in generalisation without presenting the relevant scientific literature that confirms the authors' words.
2) Are the authors sure that all the references listed in lines 72-78 match the terms assigned? Does the statement "achievements" refer to literature that something has been invented or created, or have the results of the stated scientific literature been confirmed by research that includes the concepts of cartographic generalisation presented?
3) As it stands, I would modify this chapter and move it to the introduction, as it contains nothing more than a mere listing of generalisation concepts. The authors do not address what these studies have to do with the authors' article.
Methodology:
1) Line 163 - > what is "attribute issmall"? There is no explanation in the text.
2) It would be good to change Figure 1 to show which elements refer to specific places in the chapter "Methodology". In this chapter, the methods used in the text are presented in such detail that the reader may not understand in the chart what the text refers to and what it does not.
Methodology + Experimental results and discussion:
1) Lines 313-336 - > experimental design and setting in chapter 4 should be in the methodology chapter. The research area presented and the way this research was conducted is part of the methodology, not the results of the article.
2) Line 314 - > "The proposed method is implemented in the Python language." - So much for the description? Why was this programming language used and how did the authors of the study use this method. You cannot add a sentence to the results about the chosen method of experimental design without considering and describing the details of the research.
Experimental results and discussion:
1) This entire chapter is chaotic and not logically structured. For a better presentation of the results, I would divide this chapter into two separate "Results" and "Discussion"
2) Lines 337-348 - > The chapter is titled "Results and Analysis", but for me, no analysis is presented here, only the figures on the research results are described.
3) The actual research results are nowhere to be found in the whole article, only the authors go directly to the discussion chapters: "4.2.1. Qualitative Discussion "and" 4.2.2. Quantitative Discussion". I would advise you to first describe the research results and present these results in figures, and then describe the "Discussion" chapter where the results and interesting conclusions are discussed.
4) Lines 394-402 - > The authors add out of nowhere aspects of the evaluation of the results that do not fit with the elements of the "Discussion" chapter. Such methods of presentation could be used, but they are not reflected at all in the methodology of the scientific article (no previous mention) and why the authors chose such assessment parameters and why they added three new parameters to improve the results presented. The authors do not provide any explanation as to why Table 3 could be helpful in interpreting the results and how they are reflected in the text of the article.
5) Lines 412-413 - > The authors cite again the content that should be included in the methodological chapter and there is no previous place in the text (software used).
References:
1) The prepared references do not comply with the MDPI standard: no bolded years in scientific articles, capitalisation of surnames (19), wrong structure of the cited conference (33), lack of italics in the texts, wrong font or line spacing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
As suggestions I have:
1- To explain more about the meaning of the reference variable ( Lthd ), briefly defined in text line 226. This variable is used several times including as a base for decision making as shown in Tables 1 and 2. This variable is used again in other manuscript parts, as in line 300 in combination with reference variable ( Wthd ). In this latter case associated to a "cartographic generalization rules and experiences" whose Reference(s) has to be given.
2- Homogenize the use of words False / True ( false / true ) and correct typing of word 'true' found between lines 188 and 189.
3- Begins in line 317 an affirmative regarding river length, associated to the representation as dual-line or linear river. This affirmative has be reviewed.
4- A method identified as SURC (Superpixel river collapse) is extensively used as reference or in comparison for the method proposed. It could be appropriate to pay more attention to own proposed method and to improve comments in terms of number of collapses number of exaggerations, that is, to reveal or to put in evidence all the merits related to proposed method.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
many thanks for your very interesting article. I have only a few comments to your text:
1. The title of article is "Progressive collapse of dual-line river based on...", but you describe the collapse of polygon´s expression of rivers. It is a bit different, because dual-line means that river is expressed by line consist of two parallel lines. In your case you consider rivers expressed as a polygon features, I mean. Am I right?
2. The solution of dual-line collapse is completely different to solution of polygon collapse, you have done.
3. Your solution of polygon collapse to line feature is interesting and I have to evaluate your attitude to this problem is complex.
4. You mentioned another methods of collapse solution including Esri software. I work with older Arc Map and new ArcGIS Pro. In Arc Map 10.6 there is only tool - Collapse Dual Lines to Center Line, which is not appropriate for polygon features collapse. But in ArcGIS Pro 2.9.1 there is special tool for hydrology - Collapse Hydro Polygon, which works similarly to your. If you have access to ArcGIS Pro I would like to know what differrencies would be between both solutions using the same data. Many cartographers work with ArcGIS Pro and maybe they would appreciate such as comparing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the paper have responded to all my comments and have changed the text in all chapters. I have no further comments and can recommend the article for publication in the journal.
