An Automatic Derivation Method for Creation of Complex Map Symbols in a Topographic Map

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a method of how to automatically derive geometric characteristics from complex symbols. Overall, I really struggle to see the research question that is addressed in this paper. To me, this seems more like a workflow. What is lacking, is the main paper, i.e.: how the information/knowledge derived from the method used to address specific research questions.  Also, the operation based on the distance threshold between polygon vertices is also quite standard.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion and make some changes. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript.

changes are given as follows:

(1)added a more detailed steps(line 100-111) and a figure(Fig 6) to state the creation of the map symbols;

(2)added a Discussion section and rewrote more detailed Conlussions to state the research main contributions and show our acheivements;

(3)revised some unclear grounds of argument(i.e. Figures of describing steps).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for an interesting manuscript.

Below please find the suggestions of major and minor improvements.

Major remarks:

1. You cite only 20 references. You need to cite more international literature, especially important references concerning standards of map design, including books on cartographic map design.

2. What are the research main contributions? 

3. You write that a standard large scale map was used for validation, however, I can not see this map in the manuscript, thus it is impossible to evaluate your results.

4. It is nor clear why you disintegrate the symbols. Is it a standard practice? Based on what principles?

5. Please clarify and improve the schema of the research methodology. It will clarify the steps and let a reader follow your research stages. What is a logic layer? Mode later? Application layer?

6. The paper structure needs improvement. I would suggest to follow the standard paper structure that is Introduction containing (if required by the Journal) Related works, Research methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions.

7. The paper lacks a discussion section with clear comparison with well-designed large scale paper maps and comparison to cited references.

8. The concussion section is way too short.

9. What is the scientific added value of the research? This should be stated? Could this methodology be applied elsewhere?

Minor remarks:

 

1. Please improve the English language in your manuscript. I am not a Native Speaker but I find language mistakes, as well as inappropriate language constructions. Example: figure 5 caption “This is the methodology technology route” or page 1, line 30: “In the study represented by AutoCAD?”.

2. Figure 17 - it is of bad quality. I am not able to read it.

3. Please add a reference paper map to evaluate your results.

4. I would expect more figures, showing achieved results.

5. I would also like to see verification of the developed methodology on further test areas.

Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper "An Automatic Derivation Method for Complex Symbols in a Large-scale Topographic Map" aims on automatic derivation method for complex symbols in a large-scale topographic map. An article is based on process of Derivation  which is a not common and often mentioned topic in academic paper.

 

I would like to congratulate authors to an excelent paper. 

The paper is well structured, it follows an academic structure, it combines four derivation modes (feature-point, centroid, feature-line, parallel-line), the idea is unique but still adequate to publish within GIS topic. In genereal, the paper provide quite interesting outputs to the readers.

The workflow and methodology is unique, interesting, on adequate level of quality, references are appropriate. Images/maps are well prepared and designed.

Therefore I do not have any significant comments, and I recommend to accept the paper in the present form for publishing in IJGI Journal.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your appreciation.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is focused on automated process of the creation of complex map symbols in large-scale topographic maps. The designed method and the platform have been tested and implemented in CAD sw within the cartographic process of creation of large scale map sheets.

A few comments to improve the description of the methodology and implementation.

- To change the title: ... for Creation of Complex Map Symbols ..; ... for Complex Map Symbols ...

- Keywords:  to add min. 2 keywords 

- 1. Introduction; better to describe (characterised) complex map symbols according to the norm "GB/T 20257.1-2017; Cartographic Symbols for National Fundamental Scale Maps—Part 1"

- titles of the chapter 2, 3.2 could be change

-line 143; Euclidean distance formula is missing in the text 

- Fig. 13 is unclear accordance to describe steps in the text (edges; L1, L2, N and D ???) to improve Fig.13 like Fig.10,11. 

- Fig. 14 is unclear accordance to describe steps in the text (points 1-4 or A-D, edges; L, D ???) to improve Fig. 14 like Fig.10, 11;

- Fig.13 and 14 have the same title

- chapter 4.2; A more detailed description of the IGEO platform (access - weblink ???) , graphical interface (within AutoCAD ???) is missing. It would be appropriate to add figures.

         -  as well as  the description of implementation of the method (step by step) is missing; input data/co-ordinates; ...

-line 282; The statement is vague, unsupported by arguments.

- chapter 4.2; the description of testing the effectiveness of the automatic creation of map symbols is missing.

- Fig. 17; Low resolution of the map section; Scale ???; reformulate the title : ... derivation result ... of what ??? 

- Tab. 1; reformulate the title;  ... Examples of derivation of ...what ??? 

- References;  not active weblinks (14,  15) ??? 

- Unclear formulation and misspellings are marked in the text.     

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate that the author substantially improve the manuscript. As other reviewers have no objections, I agree to accept the paper after minor revisions.  

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank your for your appreciation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your responses and so far improvements.

However I have two more but important suggestions:

1. Please add paper contributions not only in discussion (I would rather move it to conclusion section) but also in the abstract.

2. When I wanted you to add paper maps I meant not necessary original scanned maps but at least fragments of them, vectorised by you. Otherwise it is hard to prove that your methods works well. I would suggest to add these for reference.

Kind regards

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx