Interactive Thematic Map as a Means of Documenting and Visualizing Information about Cultural Heritage Objects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled ”Interactive thematic map as a means of documenting and visualising information about cultural heritage objects” deals with an interesting topic of web cartography and an interesting field of application, i.e. cultural heritage. While the topic is promising, the innovative potential of the application and its methodology does not become clear in the current state of the manuscript. Before this manuscript can be considered for publication in this international impact journal, the authors should work on a thorough revision. The following points are suggested:
1) When putting emphasis on a specific case study of cultural heritage, the peculiarities of the site should be summarized at the beginning of a paper. Why is this case study of particular interest (section 1)?
2) After clarifying the role of the example site, authors should show their readers how this case study ties on related works (section 2). When coming to methodological considerations, the specific data sources and methodological peculiarities should be emphasized (in section 3). If you follow this line, the reader would better understand why your interactive map bears innovative potential for improving web cartography.
3) The code fragments you highlight are standard approaches in leaflet.js-based and three.js-based web cartography. In the last 4-5 years, several studies were published that dealt with the application of the leaflet-library. Current papers should however go beyond the simple application. Could you find some example code passages that go beyond the standard library? Are there any particuliarities in your map application that cause an extension of the library?
4) Your discussion section (5) should emphasize the innovative bits of your application. In how far does your cultural heritage web map extend or even contradict related approaches?
5) The Figure caption of Figure 1 should include an explanation about the innovative aspects of your map application.
The English language should be checked carefully when preparing a revised version.
Author Response
14.06.2023
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1
Ref.: "ijgi-2384015"
Interactive thematic map as a means of documenting and visualizing information about cultural heritage objects
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for all of the useful feedback, which has helped us to make this a better paper. First and foremost, we would like to thank the Reviewer for the interest shown in the topic proposed for ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. We attach considerable importance to general comments, which allowed us to concentrate on the essence of the problem undertaken in the present article.
Thanks to this inspiration, we have reconstructed text:
- We have added new literature reference;
- We have extended the paper according to the suggestions and new paragraphs are marked in yellow in the manuscript;
Thank you very much for your encouraging comments.
Below is a response to the reviewer’s comments. We have highlighted each reviewer’s original comments in italics. New paragraphs in our re-written text are in yellow and changes in the manuscript are in yellow.
Regards,
Authors
Reviewer #1:
The manuscript entitled” Interactive thematic map as a means of documenting and visualising information about cultural heritage objects” deals with an interesting topic of web cartography and an interesting field of application, i.e., cultural heritage. While the topic is promising, the innovative potential of the application and its methodology does not become clear in the current state of the manuscript. Before this manuscript can be considered for publication in this international impact journal, the authors should work on a thorough revision. The following points are suggested:
1) When putting emphasis on a specific case study of cultural heritage, the peculiarities of the site should be summarized at the beginning of a paper. Why is this case study of particular interest (section 1)?
We agree that this information should appear, but we believe that section 3 subsection 3.1 is the best place for it.
The text we added:
In this methodological approach, the authors focus on topographical objects such as windmills from the Wielkopolska region. According to the research by Lorek [47], the windmill belongs to a group of objects that formed the cultural landscape of Wielkopolska in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Over the next years, as a result of economic changes, these objects lost their importance and disappeared from the space. Currently, relatively few windmills are legally protected, despite the fact that they are important objects of cultural heritage of the region [46], so it is important to document and visualise information about them in order to promote social knowledge and effectively protect this element of cultural heritage.
2) After clarifying the role of the example site, authors should show their readers how this case study ties on related works (section 2). When coming to methodological considerations, the specific data sources and methodological peculiarities should be emphasized (in section 3). If you follow this line, the reader would better understand why your interactive map bears innovative potential for improving web cartography.
Following a comment from another reviewer, we've shortened the introduction. We also tried to create a better transition from section 1 to section 2.
3) The code fragments you highlight are standard approaches in leaflet.js-based and three.js-based web cartography. In the last 4-5 years, several studies were published that dealt with the application of the leaflet-library. Current papers should however go beyond the simple application. Could you find some example code passages that go beyond the standard library? Are there any particuliarities in your map application that cause an extension of the library?
As we stated in the first line of the Results section: "the basic functions of the Leaflet library were used", the authors of this article largely rely on the library functions (Leaflet.js and Three.js) developed in recent years. In principle, our article shows the methodological process of creating an interactive thematic map. The most important aspects of our work include:
- We provide a proven product that is not the basic product of a function/plugin for a simple dataset;
- We put together several approaches that we have tested to eliminate bugs;
- We have tested different data in different file extensions;
- We have reviewed the standard and extended methods used in the code and provided alternative solutions;
- We provide a methodological process that can be further extended;
- We have presented data validation in a simple way;
Of course, in further research we believe that we will not only extend the application with additional data, but also propose to extend the JavaScript libraries used.
To clarify the use of most of the basic functions, we have added the following excerpts to the Discussion and Conclusions section.
Discussion:
The authors use the basic functions of the Leaflet.js and Three.js libraries and extend their capabilities by combining existing solutions that have been developed in recent years. The authors are aware that they aren't extending the libraries used by relying mainly on the basic functions, but in developing this methodological approach they wanted to achieve a reliable and tested result so that it could serve as a basis for further research.
Conclusions:
Thanks to the basic functions of the Leaflet.js and Three.js libraries, the authors will try to extend the libraries used in further research.
4) Your discussion section (5) should emphasize the innovative bits of your application. In how far does your cultural heritage web map extend or even contradict related approaches?
We have dealt with this comment in the same way as item 3.
The authors use the basic functions of the Leaflet.js and Three.js libraries and extend their capabilities by combining existing solutions that have been developed in recent years. The authors are aware that they aren't extending the libraries used by relying mainly on the basic functions, but in developing this methodological approach they wanted to achieve a reliable and tested result so that it could serve as a basis for further research.
5) The Figure caption of Figure 1 should include an explanation about the innovative aspects of your map application.
We have corrected the figure and included the elements of our application.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors aim to develop a methodological data collection process for the documentation and visualisation of information about cultural heritage objects. The type of documentation and visualisation of information developed in the article will be an interactive thematic map. This map will allow the collection and visualisation of all types of data, from attribute data to 3D models.
In the article, the methodological process developed by the authors should be highlighted more clearly, especially what is new compared to the state of the art.
Furthermore, I suggest that the abstract be completely rewritten in a more technical/scientific manner, highlighting the (qualitative) results obtained and describing the novelties in addition to the data used. As it stands, it is too general. In the introduction, the state of the art of survey methods for the documentation of cultural heritage objects is lacking in some of the methods available today (e.g. satellite images, multispectral images, etc.), which need to be completed.
Author Response
14.06.2023
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2
Ref.: "ijgi-2384015"
Interactive thematic map as a means of documenting and visualizing information about cultural heritage objects
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for all of the useful feedback, which has helped us to make this a better paper. First and foremost, we would like to thank the Reviewer for the interest shown in the topic proposed for ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. We attach considerable importance to general comments, which allowed us to concentrate on the essence of the problem undertaken in the present article.
Thanks to this inspiration, we have reconstructed text:
- We have added new literature references;
- We have extended the paper according to the suggestions and new paragraphs are marked in yellow in the manuscript;
Thank you very much for your encouraging comments.
Below is a response to the reviewer’s comments. We have highlighted each reviewer’s original comments in italics. New paragraphs in our re-written text are in yellow and changes in the manuscript are in yellow.
Regards,
Authors
Reviewer #2:
The authors aim to develop a methodological data collection process for the documentation and visualisation of information about cultural heritage objects. The type of documentation and visualisation of information developed in the article will be an interactive thematic map. This map will allow the collection and visualisation of all types of data, from attribute data to 3D models.
In the article, the methodological process developed by the authors should be highlighted more clearly, especially what is new compared to the state of the art.
To link the reviewer's opinion with that of reviewer 1, we added the following excerpt to the discussion:
The authors use the basic functions of the Leaflet.js and Three.js libraries and extend their capabilities by combining existing solutions that have been developed in recent years. The authors are aware that they aren't extending the libraries used by relying mainly on the basic functions, but in developing this methodological approach they wanted to achieve a reliable and tested result so that it could serve as a basis for further research.
Furthermore, I suggest that the abstract be completely rewritten in a more technical/scientific manner, highlighting the (qualitative) results obtained and describing the novelties in addition to the data used. As it stands, it is too general. In the introduction, the state of the art of survey methods for the documentation of cultural heritage objects is lacking in some of the methods available today (e.g. satellite images, multispectral images, etc.), which need to be completed.
According to the reviewer's opinion, we improved the abstract.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The cultural heritage objects and the method of these data collection as well as the type of data visualisation are the main issues addressed in the text.
The introduction was long, making it difficult to point out the essence of the issue. "Related works" was a very interesting part of the manuscript.
It seems to me that also the ratio of methodology and results is a bit skewed. Indeed, I would have expected more examples of the application of the methodology discussed in detail. It is also worth adding in the captions (fig. 1) English translations of the names of the objects shown.
However, this does not change the fact that the presented methodology is an interesting approach and, as indicated in the conclusion, worthy of further analysis.
Author Response
14.06.2023
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #3
Ref.: "ijgi-2384015"
Interactive thematic map as a means of documenting and visualizing information about cultural heritage objects
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank for all of the useful feedback, which has helped us to make this a better paper. First and foremost, we would like to thank the Reviewer for the interest shown in the topic proposed for ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. We attach considerable importance to general comments, which allowed us to concentrate on the essence of the problem undertaken in the present article.
Thanks to this inspiration, we have reconstructed text:
- We have added new literature references;
- We have extended the paper according to the suggestions and new paragraphs are marked in yellow in the manuscript;
Thank you very much for your encouraging comments.
Below is a response to the reviewer’s comments. We have highlighted each reviewer’s original comments in italics. New paragraphs in our re-written text are in yellow and changes in the manuscript are in yellow.
Regards,
Authors
Reviewer #3:
The cultural heritage objects and the method of these data collection as well as the type of data visualisation are the main issues addressed in the text.
The introduction was long, making it difficult to point out the essence of the issue. "Related works" was a very interesting part of the manuscript.
As suggested by the reviewer, we have shortened the introduction of our article.
It seems to me that also the ratio of methodology and results is a bit skewed. Indeed, I would have expected more examples of the application of the methodology discussed in detail. It is also worth adding in the captions (fig. 1) English translations of the names of the objects shown.
We have changed figure 1. Incomprehensible elements (Polish) have been changed to English. In the figure we have marked the functionality available in the presented application and expanded the description about:
Section A of Figure 1 shows three information areas (1 - photo gallery, 2 - 3D model, 3 - attribute data). Photo gallery can be easily created by creating a button (or <a>) from the first photo for subsequent photos. The authors recommend using the Lightbox.js library. Thanks to this library, you can set up the same data-lightbox (<img>) for many photos, creating a photo gallery in a simple and consistent way. In addition, you can add a description (data-title) for each photo. We are also not limited by file extensions for raster images. In the case of the 3D model (Figure 1 B), in addition to loading the model, an animation around the Z-axis was used so that the map user can view the object from all sides. However, you can always create a function that allows the user to freely rotate the model in all three axes. The easiest way to achieve this effect is to use a plugin for the Three.js library, namely OrbitControl.js. The last section of the information window is the attribute data. Here we are limited only by the amount of information we added during vectorisation and the selection of the most important in the context of the interactive thematic map. If you need more data for the visualisation, you can create a button that expands more information or displays the whole table in another window, depending on your preferences, e.g. alert().
However, this does not change the fact that the presented methodology is an interesting approach and, as indicated in the conclusion, worthy of further analysis.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provided a revised version of the manuscript and a response letter in which changes, according to the reviewer comments, are explained. The argumentation in the response letter and manuscript itself is sound. Against this background, I can support the publication of this manuscript.
Moderate editing of English language required
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
