Evaluation Model of Parking Equipment Planning and Design Based on Object-Oriented Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

2-3 The title of the paper is missing Technology at the end.

The paper is missing more information on the dimensions of the design of the parking place - lines 219-228. There is only one China national standard cited. Furthermore, I would suggest that the authors include the following work in the bibliography: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.432

https://doi.org/10.3390/computation8030071 

The information about the influence of maneuvering (road width) and design vehicles is missing. What are the dimensions of the largest passenger cars taking into consideration in the design of the parking place? It can be a case that national standard requires smaller places than the dimensions of used vehicles. What value is considered as the minimum width of the road K0?

232 - Sentence not clear. R is length of facing of two buildings opposite each other or only one? It will be more clear to have R the length of one building only because of parallel and perpendicular places which have different results.

251-252 - If parking spaces are parallel to the road then 2x2,5 m shall be considered not 7.5 m.

263-264 - 3R/10 (average) is not correct because there are different results for both buildings R/5 and R/10

Table 1: Fourth and fifth figures in the table are the same. It shall be corrected.

Do exist more accurate ortophoto map of the study area (337)? How the Google map error of 0.5 m (citation is missing) affect the number of parking places?  Was this considered in the paper?

How object tracking can detect the road width if it is covered by the trees or the aim of the paper is to detect only buildings and the length and width of the roads are measured by field survey? What if the sum of dimensions of available parking places is smaller than the length of the building? Please explain if it is always the whole length of the facing of building available e.g. area for entrances to buildings, waste management. 

Could you please add new figure where figure 5 (lines of buildings and roads) is placed on figure 4 to clearly see the comparison of two figures?

Figure 5 - Please provide an indication of distances between buildings for each road K1-K13. The figure is also missing arrow indication whether there is one way or two way traffic. This is also not indicated in the paper. 

Table 2, Table 3: It shall be indicated what dimensions of buildings and roads are from object tracking and from field survey and what are the differences. This is also missing in conclusions (442) where it is mentioned high accuracy, but there is no comparison of this technology to field survey in the whole paper. 

Table 3 - These distances seem to be distances between buildings and not real distances of roads in the study area which also influence the calculated number of parking places further. E.g. K1 - measured from google Earth 17,5 m between buildings and 18m for road according to the paper, K4 - 17,5 m between buildings and paper indicates 21 m for the road similarly K5-21/24m....

Explain what does it mean field survey. What kind of equipment was used to measure these dimensions of buildings and roads? Dimensional drawing from field survey of studied area would be better understandable for the readers.

Figure 6 to 11 - The number of parking places at each building shall be rounded down but it is one more in figures.

Figure 9 - Circle diameter indication is missing and not also mentioned in the text.

Figure 10 - Some explanations in Chinese.

Figure 11 and text is missing how many red parking places are designed. The final comparative table of the number of parking places with and without stereo parking for each building is missing.

The conclusions are not clearly supported by the results. The comparison of accuracy is missing. Indicate also what influence accuracy of object-orriented technology. The conclusions are missing the results from chapter 4. Practical Application.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your letter concerning our manuscript entitled “Evaluation Model of Parking Equipment Planning and Design Based on Object-oriented”( ID:1189427 ).

We have carefully considered your comments, which help us to improve the manuscript substantially. We have revised the content of the manuscript according to each valuable suggestion. And the changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red. Please refer to the attachment of “Response to Reviewer 1 Comments” for details. 

Please contact us If you have any questions. And looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Yours sincerely，

Name :Minna Ni

E-mail:nimn@dhu.edu.cn

Apr.17th. 2021

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Table 1, rows 4 and 5 are identical; this is not good.

Formula (7): the value 0,18 is good for the China, but can the result be applied in other countries, and  in which way?

table 2: if "households" is the number of families, it appears too high for the size of the building; is this the number of individuals? please, check the translation.

Fig. 9 ; the significance of the figure is not clear; please explan better in the text.

The same for the figures 10 and 11; please check the translation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your letter concerning our manuscript entitled “Evaluation Model of Parking Equipment Planning and Design Based on Object-oriented”( ID:1189427 ).

We have carefully considered your comments, which help us to improve the manuscript substantially. We have revised the content of the manuscript according to each valuable suggestion. And the changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red. Please refer to the attachment of “Response to Reviewer 1 Comments” for details.

Please contact us If you have any questions. And looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Yours sincerely，

Name :Minna Ni

E-mail:nimn@dhu.edu.cn

Apr.17th. 2021

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the submitted second draft. The following comments are enclosed:

1. 234-235 – If R is the length of one building then the number of places is not correct. For Number 2 it shall be R/5 for one side of the research road because there is no space to have other parking places on the opposite side.
2. Could you please add a new figure where figure 5 (lines of buildings and roads with numbers are enough) is placed on figure 4 to clearly see the comparison of the two figures? It is necessary to understand for the readers how the result looks in direct comparison to Figure 4. It shall be something like the figure enclosed to directly see how each building and road axis is extracted. Or this new figure can be put instead of Figure 5. It is necessary to provide this figure in the right dimensional and positional scale. What CRS was used for dimensions: EPSG:3857? Are the dimensions ellipsoidal or cartesian?
3. Table 2 – Why have you changed the dimensions of the buildings in Table 2? Length dimensions are changed 1-2 meters, but width dimensions are changed 2-4 meters! How are the results of object-oriented technology changed so significantly in the second draft of the paper? It would be very good to provide in supplementary materials kml file with the designed layer of buildings and roads axes of this area. The width of certain buildings as 2, 3, 5, 6 shall be lower.
4. Table 4 – Insert number of designed parking places for each building in Table 4 from Figure 8. Table 5 can be deleted, the results in table 5 are not corrected to new dimensions of buildings in Figure 8 e.g. Building 1 – 30/29 places. The same errors are in Table 6 - Available parking spaces before planning.
5. 418-421 – Are references to figures 10, 11 correct?
6. Table 6 – The table is not clear. How e.g. building 1 which has 30 places and no stereo parking according to figure 11 has 49 places in Table 6? What is “Plan the number of double-layer stereo parking equipment”?
7. The conclusions are not clearly supported by the results. Indicate what influences the accuracy of object-oriented technology. The conclusions are missing the results from chapter 4. Practical Application.

Comments for author File: Comments.png

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers: 

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Evaluation Model of Parking Equipment Planning and Design Based on Object-oriented”( ID:1189427 ). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in highlight in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment of “Response to Reviewer 1 Comments” for details.

We deeply appreciate your work, and we look forward to publishing our article. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you and best regards.

 

Yours sincerely,

Minna Ni

nimn@dhu.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

All my observation has an adequate answer. Tha paper can be published in tha actual form.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers: 

Your comments and suggestions have provided a lot of support for the improvement of our article. We deeply appreciate your work and thank you very much for your professional work.

Yours respectfully,

Minna Ni

nimn@dhu.edu.cn

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the paper deserves publication.