Heritage Smart City Mapping, Planning and Land Administration (Hestya)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the paper interesting as there are various ways of constructing 3D visualisations of cities and it is useful to reads the descriptions in the paper of the approaches used here. However I was unsure that the validation approach had been undertaken in a way that users of the 3D visualisation could have confidence that the model was an accurate representation of the city, particularly in relation to heritage buildings.

I do not think the title is right as the paper is not really about heritage or smart cities but about a survey and analysis method for creating a 3D visualisation. 

Author Response

Point 1. The photogrammetry accuracy was added in the paper

Point 2. The title has been changed

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper authors propose a method (or methodology) for smart city planning, especially for culturally valuable (heritage) areas, based on creation and interpretation of 3D city model. The method receives its own acronym HESTYA. 

I would like to have better explained why the results of this study are so relevant (I believe this is through linking GIS and BIM approach). Also why the results are especially suited to the cultural heritage areas? Since some of the planning regulations (described in section 3.3) seem to apply especially to housing areas.

In the literature review it is quite sufficiently explained about GIS data acquisition and modeling techniques, and also on documentation of cultural heritage. But I think too little is said (in the introduction and literature review) about the smart city planning in practice.

In the abstract and introduction it is stated that the method applied was based on community-based mapping or participatory mapping. However nothing is explained in the paper about the involvement of the community in the mapping process.

Please look at the manuscript for unnecessary repetitions, e.g. in the Literature Review (lines 57-73) the same information is repeated several times. It is also unknown to a common reader what is meant by "Outstanding Universal Value" - if this UNESCO definition, some context is needed.

It would be better to develop conclusions (chapter 5) further, which are now only in some bullet points, and link the conclusions with some discussion. Chapter 4 is basically description of results and not really discussion.

The whole paper needs extensive editing of English spelling and grammar errors. There are many cut-off sentences, etc.

Author Response

Point 1. There is an integration between bim and gis in this research. In the regulation, the cultural heritage area is the green one. For the Kasepuhan palace is in the southern part. Currently the Kasepuhan Palace area is indeed surrounded by settlements and other regional functions, this has been added in the revised paper.

Point 2. The participatory mapping is used to measure the distance in the interior of the building. This has been added to the revised paper

Point 3. have been revised

Point 4. Conclusion have been revised

Thank you for your comments and suggestions

Reviewer 3 Report

The area that is chosen is a polygon that is not clearly explained. The methodology is not justified and the conclusions are poor. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point 1. The image for area has been changed and explained in writing

Point 2. The methodology and conclusion have been revised

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is improved as the sections that have been added provide the details needed. I believe that after these new additions it can be published.