Information Fusion for Cultural Heritage Three-Dimensional Modeling of Malay Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled “The fusion efficacy of drone and mobile laser scanner 3 data over Malay City heritage 3D modeling.” deals with the coupling of mobile laser scanner and UAV photogrammetry to survey urban environment, with a main focus on cultural heritage in Malaysia.

The abstract and introduction lack of the motivations of the work, so I suggest to re-write them.

Major comments

L 66: what is the default technique?

L 139: what the “objects” are?

L 168-172: please clarify.

Minor comments

L 24-27: please revise these sentences.

L 66-67: please revise this sentence.

L 102-106: please revise these sentences.

Figure and tables

Figure 1: please add legend to interpret the colors of the map on the right side of the figure.

Table 1: please re-format the table.

Table 2: I don’t think a table of only one row is meaningful. Please substitute Table 2 with text.

General comments

I strongly recommend the revision of English language by a native speaker. Please revise the manuscript and check the English language carefully, with particular attention to the correspondence between subject and verb, e.g. Line 14: “This paper attempt [...]” → “This paper attempts [...]”.

Define the acronyms at their first appearance, e.g. Line 14: GIS (Geoographic Information System) […].

Please take care of punctuation and use it properly.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I propose the authors shorten the title to: "Information Fusion for Cultural Heritage 3D Modeling" This makes it seven words instead of 16 and is a more attractive title for readers of this Special Issue on Information Fusion. The topic is a very novel example of fusing various information sources for the described application. The quality of the figures and illustrations is very high. The paper is well structured and with clear objectives, suitable methodology. 

The conclusions are logical from the discussion and results obtained

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have developed a study to demonstrate the usefulness of merging data from laser scanning and UAV photogrammetry to obtain a 3D model of a city. All this from the point of view of the conservation of historical heritage.
The study is interesting, although it does not provide any significant advances in the field in question. However, it may be of interest to the scientific community given the extension of the study area.
Apart from the above, there are small details that need to be corrected.
- The authors use the term UAV/drone when all the scientific literature only uses the term UAV. Please correct and adapt this term.
- The second section is not well structured. I miss a section that adequately describes the materials used for the study, i.e. drone, laser scanner, surveying media, software, etc.
- The maps should have geographical coordinates.
- Figure 2 should be further explained.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The presented work is still very far from having a scientific soundness.

The text requires an extensive editing of English language, since now, in many paragraphs, it is almost incomprehensible.

The statement on Line 27: " The incorporation of numerous sensor data improves spatial data and minimizes data processing complexities as well as enables automated capabilities. " shows a lack of knowledge of the technology and the procedures adopted.

On line 57 there is a reference to a contribution [1] not consistent with the topic of the sentence.

Sections 2.2.2 and 3 are hardly understandable, due both to the poor english language, multiple repetitions, lack of informations (Eg. DSM resolution etc). Moreover, with exception to the products deriving from the aerial acquisition, there is no information on the accuracy of the models, both the MLS point cloud and the model obtained from the data integration.

Line 120: the reference to the Figure 1 is probably wrong.

Figue 4: the image on the right require a color scale.

Line 288: it is not clear how the semantic segmentation has been conducted.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The interesting premises about exploiting new mapping approaches (UAV and terrestrial) to derive and update 3D city models in Malay city are very catchy.

The first impression is that the drafting of the text is too descriptive, indeed almost only descriptive. Unfortunately the presentation of the content and the scarcity of rigorous scientific content conditioned the final effect of the paper.

The scientific content should be revised as well as the English language, which in certain traits contributes to not appreciating the content.

Introduction should be revised. the research talks about both heritage and data acquisition as well as 3D city models and parametric modeling. it is not clear from the introduction on what the research then focuses on.

References are too much and not really used, e.g. line 57, ref. [1], are you sure they talk about MLS? I'd say no. Revide order and numbering of references. numbering must follow citation order in the text.

Please, improve the abstract effectivness and quality. Line 16 "findings" --> outcomes?

Some notes about the text:

please do not repeat UAV / drone in each occurrences. UAV must be expressed in full the first time line 34. low-cost? are you sure? low cost compared to what? line 35. simulating? line 37-38. generic rough concept line 40. multicopters? multirotors? line 41. heritage security? line 43. trials? line 55 finer scale? line 45-61. please, clarify and specify. generic description. line 66-67. Not clear. Involuntary? line 87. Are you sure that is data fusion? line 85-89. please, clarify. line 120. revision of figures numbering. Figure 1 is 2? Figure 2. "ancillary" review the use of the term. Are cartographic data? mapping? time-series data? you defined them in line 128-129 GIS data. it has no precise meaning. please, be consistent. Table 1. columns settings? line 138 and beyond. why this flight configuration. references? the drone flies with oblique or nadir configuration? it is very important. the first reference you mentioned talks about that! line 147-148. use of GCPs ok, but only for georeferencing? not for control? it would be appropriate to read the methodology in the paper, it is called "UAV photogrammetry" line 163. "0.7" what are? units line 165. Agisoft is Photoscan/metashape? line 169-172. please, rewrite, not clear line 177. "overlapped photos from drones" is not a technical description. please, use appropriate terms line 178. as before line 188. City Engine, is it ESRI software? par. 2.2.2, the modelling reconstruction is described but not technically addressed. it is not clear how. Is it a parametric modelling? semantinc aspects are really taken into consideration in the modelling from point clouds? line 244. What is the meaning of the sentence "strong observation and ground inventory" ?? Was this aimed at modeling the details? line 277. dots?? points line 270-279. please, rewrite, not clear line 283. fusing? line 283-291. please, rewrite, not clear. modelling procedures specifics are missing. how did the 3D models come from the point clouds?
figure 9. are you sure that this kind of modeling are suitable, appropriate or sensible, with the concept of Heritage? line 330-331. please, clarify line 348. dots --> points conclusion must be rewritten.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Kindly find an attachment of amendment as requested. Thank you

 

regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of the suggested modifications have been added to the manuscript.

Author Response

I would like to thanks for your patient in reviewing this article, for the second round of correction, i have improved a lot of section as requested by reviewer. The latest version as in the system. thank you

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.