A System for Monitoring the Environment of Historic Places Using Convolutional Neural Network Methodologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The manuscript has been published on Preprint.

2.The discussion in Result might be a little deviate from the topic. The explanation and discussion behind the phenomenon obtained through Google Street Map is not clear enough and not targeted enough. The discussion and the spatial composition characteristics of the three types of squares do not match completely. It is not recommended to discuss some other reasons that Google Street Map does not reflect, such as social networking or noisy. Maybe you can discuss the air condition or traffic condition which can be observed in Google Street Map, and analysis the relationship between them and people’s activity on the square. Then you can achieve the conclusion what status is reflect in Google Street Map and what is the reasons for such status.

3.There are no effective conclusion in conclusion

4.What is the critical issues in conclusion?

“Furthermore, through the historical reading, an attempt was made to interpret the dynamics of current use, trying to identify some critical issues in progress.”

5.Please explain the following conclusion specifically in Result and Discussion Part:

“To restore vitality to the squares, the determining factor is what we have called “magic”, that is, the harmony of the space enriched by functional varieties. It would be advisable to create aggregation by exploiting the ability of the urban space to be attractive also due to the presence of different functions, at the same or different times of the day (market in the morning, refreshment point and meeting place in the afternoon, a favorite place for young people for evening meetings. This seemingly simple combination is unfortunately still difficult to create.”

Author Response

Review 1 Report Form

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The manuscript has been published on Preprint.

2.The discussion in Result might be a little deviate from the topic. The
explanation and discussion behind the phenomenon obtained through Google
Street Map is not clear enough and not targeted enough. The discussion and
the spatial composition characteristics of the three types of squares do
not match completely. It is not recommended to discuss some other reasons
that Google Street Map does not reflect, such as social networking or
noisy. Maybe you can discuss the air condition or traffic condition which
can be observed in Google Street Map, and analysis the relationship between
them and people’s activity on the square. Then you can achieve the
conclusion what status is reflect in Google Street Map and what is the
reasons for such status.

 

Response 2: (in red)

I agree that it is not appropriate to make references to social networks so the paragraph has been deleted.

I worked in the Conclusions chapter, in particular: identifying the critical issues that emerged in the study, and some possible solutions that were highlighted by comparing the squares.

In addition, I described the future developments of the research.

 

 

3.There are no effective conclusion in conclusion.

Response 3: (in red)

I have made some important additions

4.What is the critical issues in conclusion?

Response 4: (in red)

I have specified the critical issues that emerged from the study.

“Furthermore, through the historical reading, an attempt was made to
interpret the dynamics of current use, trying to identify some critical
issues in progress.”

5.Please explain the following conclusion specifically in Result and
Discussion Part:

“To restore vitality to the squares, the determining factor is what we have
called “magic”, that is, the harmony of the space enriched by functional
varieties. It would be advisable to create aggregation by exploiting the
ability of the urban space to be attractive also due to the presence of
different functions, at the same or different times of the day (market in
the morning, refreshment point and meeting place in the afternoon, a
favorite place for young people for evening meetings. This seemingly simple
combination is unfortunately still difficult to create.”

Response 5: (in red)

I hope I have amply clarified the proposal to revitalise the squares through variety in functions in particular in the chapter Conclusions.

 

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well presented. I suggest to add more recent references if present and to explain better for each square examinated the process. Also, have the authors the interest and the idea to apply the methodology to other squares?

Which problems have the authors seen applying the methodology to squares of different eras and different conception of spaces? I know is written but I think it needs more explaination

Author Response

Review 2 Report Form
Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well presented. I suggest to add more recent references if
present and to explain better for each square examinated the process.

Response: (in red)

I have integrated a recent bibliography 

Also, have the authors the interest and the idea to apply the methodology to other squares?

Response: (in red)

Yes of course I have highlighted this very important aspect of the study in the Conclusions.

Which problems have the authors seen applying the methodology to squares of
different eras and different conception of spaces? I know is written but I
think it needs more explaination

Response: (in red)

I hope I have made this clear.

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well structured and very interesting, few remarks on the conclusions are provided, which can be extended and made more "practical" in relation to future developments of the research.

Author Response

Review 3 Report Form

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well structured and very interesting, few remarks on the conclusions are provided, which can be extended and made more "practical" in relation to future developments of the research.

Response: (in red)

I agree with the comment made by the referees that little information is provided in the Conclusions chapter. In this regard, I have extended the chapter and provided more information as well as practical aspects for research developments.

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still think Discussion Part need to be improved, not just delete some references.

The explanation and discussion behind the phenomenon obtained through Google Street Map is not clear enough and not targeted enough. 

Author Response

Dear Referee

I would like to thank you for your work and enclose the revised text according to your suggestions, which we have fully taken on board.

Specifically, we have supplemented the text by explaining the phenomenon of GSV, describing the advantages and limitations and possible future developments.

We look forward to hearing from you and trusting in a positive outcome.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx