Comparison of Land Cover Categorical Data Stored in OSM and Authoritative Topographic Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript needs major revision before publication
1. Introduction section should focus on the following points such as introduction to the research area, the motivation behind this research, the objective of the research, the contribution of the authors in this article, etc. It is missing in this article. Lack of proper organization of the manuscript.
2. Literature review section is also not clearly identified and written. The readability of the paper reduces due to a lack of explanation. The problem of your work is not clearly identified. Limitations of this method are also emphasized and how the application domain of this proposed model should be justified by the requirements of real-world problems.
3. There is very limited in novelty the work. It must be clearly specified in terms of "text and model" in the proposed section. The proposed section is not clearly written. It should clearly specify the methodology and its working principles in detail.
4. More explanation is required in methodology rather than basic derivations. Some more standard datasets may be considered and the performance measure should be considered. It should be validated using some statistical techniques. Different parameters that may be considered during the experiment, need to be clearly explained.
5. Result analysis should also be compared with some existing work to improve the quality of the manuscript. All the methods must be tested through some standard datasets and results must be compared.
6. In the conclusion section, the limitations and future scope of the method need to be addressed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for all your valuable recommendations and comments. The article has been proofread. According to the individual comments, we have modified the manuscript and marked the changes in red. The manuscript has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability. Below we outline our response to your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I think it needs to be corrected in the following 3 aspects:
Need to explain why a hexagonal grid is used instead of a quadrilateral grid
Uncertainty is an important discussion result, but this article needs to discuss semantic uncertainty, especially the same name, and the combination of distance, orientation and other uncertainty factors
I hope to add some work to increase the study area to further explain the factors of selecting the area.
Minor mistakes should be concerned.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for all your valuable recommendations and comments. The article has been proofread. According to the individual comments, we have modified the manuscript and marked the changes in red. The manuscript has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability. Below we outline our response to your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study aims at comparative analysis of quantitative data, namely OSM and BDOT10k. Analyses were conducted in 1km2 hexagonal grid, in seven test countries located in different regions of Poland. This study proposed a weighted linear combination (called WLC) method for comparative analysis of two data sets. Generally, the method is interesting. However, the manuscript should be revised before it can be published.
(1) There is a lack of references regarding the quality of OSM data. Extensive studies have been proposed to assess OSM data quality, which should be addressed. For instance,
Zhou et al. (2022). Exploring the accuracy and completeness patterns of global land-cover/land-use data in OpenStreetMap. Applied Geography.
Besides, it is needed to discuss why the study proposed a new method, and what is the advantage of the new method compared with those in existing studies.
(2) There were different quality measures that have been defined by International Standard Organization (ISO), e.g., positional accuracy, completeness, logical consistency. It is not clear what type of quality measure has been assessed using the proposed method? Please explain this point in more details.
(3) Lines 201-207: It is also not clear that what are the weights used in equation(3). Please explain it in more details.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for all your valuable recommendations and comments. The article has been proofread. According to the individual comments, we have modified the manuscript and marked the changes in red. The manuscript has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability. Below we outline our response to your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It can be now accept
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no further comment!
