Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a novel method for modeling Multi-rotunda Buildings at the LoD3 level based on LiDAR data. The paper is well-written and well-structured, but the innovation is relatively limited. I have the following suggestions.

1. A detailed description of the LoD3 level is required.

2. The method is based on the assumption that the buildings are with Multi-rotunda structure. How does this assumption be achieved in advance?

3. The coordinate system should be given for Fig. 3

4. Quantitative results are needed for Sec. 5.2.

 

5. The limitations of the proposed methods should be better illustrated, especially the application scenes.

The language is fine.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate all your observations and comments. It is a great pleasure for us to consider all the comments and answering them one by one as follows. Corresponding major changes are highlighted in the revised manuscripts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript proposes a modeling method for buildings with solid of revolution. It has novelty while some details need further clarification. Detailed comments are as follows:

 lines49-51: It’s hard to understand. If a building cannot be identified, how can it be divided into segments?

 lines83-86: Suggest point out the limitation of [41] before proposing a new method.

 Figure 4(a): Missing x and y titles.

 Line 256: “Figure 5c”Probably it should be “Figure 6c”.

 Section5: the result section is relatively weak. Quantitative comparison is lacked.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We note from your feedback that you reviewed the paper very carefully line by line. We appreciate the great effort you put into this task. We feel extremely fortunate that our paper has received such attention from you. In fact, such high-quality reviewing reflects the outstanding quality of Remote Sensing. This is why we thank the journal editor for the careful selection of the review team. At this stage, we would like to confirm that the paper has been revised and edited by considering all your comments. All corrections are now highlighted in yellow. We hope that the revised version meets the required standard and is accepted for publication in this journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The present manuscript is the successive work by the authors which focuses on modeling rotunda-like ornamental part of a building. Such works are necessary to achieve LoD3 level building information models from airborne LiDAR data, and all such kind of works are always welcome in academic community as well as in industrial sectors. The following specific points regarding the descriptions of the method need to be improved to make it clearer before publication:

1.       The first step of the method is to rotate the point cloud according to equation 1, as described in lines 141~161. However, from the equations 1 and 2 and to my understand, it was the projection of the point cloud onto the plane spanned by X1 and Y1. Where is the rotation?

2.       The description from lines 161 to 176 are hard to follow. Rewriting it. Besides, I could not find out the “three reasons” mentioned in the paragraph.

3.       There are more than one count of the word “plan” in the lines 207 to 227, which should be the word “plane”. Double check it.

 

4.       The equations (3) , (4) and (5) were first proposed in the previous paper by the authors (see reference 41), but how the coefficients alpha and beta were derived and why X and Y coordinates for each points were Xg and Yg added by 1,2,3… times the coefficients, and then finally comes back to Xg and Yg? They were not explained in reference 41 neither. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your constructive comments that have enriched our thoughts, leading to clarification for some obscure points, and improving the readability of illustrated figures. Furthermore, your feedback does not only represent a simple comment, but it also outlines a road map for a high-quality paper. It is a great pleasure for us to consider all the comments and replying to them one by one as follows:  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx