Portraying the Geography of US Airspace with 3-Dimensional GIS-Based Analysis and Visualization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author poses a highly interesting issue, namely US Airspace visualization. Compared to the visualization of ground elements, airspace proves difficult to visualize due to its diverse types and overlaps. To gain a better understanding of this paper and its outcomes, I visited the website linked in the article to examine the system. I believe the main problems in this paper are as follows:

1. Regarding visualization: (1) The paper employs skirts to represent each airspace, and its type is indicated by distinct colors. However, in the three-dimensional visualization environment, it is challenging to intuitively reflect the different heights of the airspace, that is, one can merely sense the difference but cannot confirm the extent of the difference. (2) When the viewpoint shifts to a lower position, one will be trapped in a certain airspace, and due to the lack of transparency, it is impossible to establish the relationship between the current airspace and the outside world. (3) As there are numerous airspaces, in the case of a high and distant viewpoint, the airspace presents a complex stacking situation, with many airspace skirts piled up together. Neither the geographical distribution of the airspace can be clearly discerned, nor can the height distribution of the airspace be comprehended. (4) The absence of legends for airspace height makes it impossible to intuitively estimate the height. (5) When the boundaries of the airspace overlap and cap, no effective treatment is carried out.

2. In terms of data processing: The author divides each airspace scope into 100 blocks of equal area. May I ask on what basis it is divided into 100? Airspace sizes vary greatly. Are they divided based on the same value, resulting in inconsistent accuracy?

Author Response

Please find our detailed responses in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper illustrates the implementation of a web-based platform for interactively explore US controlled airspaces, taking advantage of the potential of GIS solutions. The developed prototype described in the text is also made available online with working features as detailed in the text. In general, the discussed solution represent an innovative approach for engaging a wider public in the understanding of air regulations.

Overall, despite some repetitions, the paper is well written, especially in the introduction and background sections that properly highlights gaps in recent literature while highlighting the relevance of adopting geovisualisation as a solution for managing information in the controlled airspaces field of application.

While providing a clear and detailed background on previous research on this topic as well as on the motivations, however, it lacks of a well structured methodology section that illustrates the requirement analysis and design process behind the implementation of the resulting solution. Indeed, the general workflow can be only deduced from portion of the paper and it is never clearly explained. A dedicated section is required before introducing the available open data and their vertical calibration.

In particular, some points require more attention:

1. how the entire technological framework is defined? Which are the different components? A supporting image, maybe a syntethic scheme, could furtherly support the explanation and be of interest for readers. Some information about the overall methodology and steps of implementation are included in section 5 but it doesn't follow effectively the discussion flow. A general description of the methodology adopted has to be anticipated earlier in the text.

2. How the data described in the dedicated section is managed in the backend? Is it stored in a DB? or is it called through a WFS? This is not really clearly explained in the text.

3. Even if it slightly addressed in the conclusions, it is not well detailed how the end users where identified. How different groups of users can benefit from the implemented functionalities? Also, what are the different quantitative impacts of the platform on technical users as well as general public accessing it? Discussion on how this instrument can impact everyday users is missing.

4. The description of the GUI of the platform is well detailed and targeted to the users. Maybe considering including an exploration guide/documentation could enhance unfamiliar users experience. It is difficult to understand how the technical elements and terminology included in the features attributes can be understood by "generic users". A discussion on the inclusion of informative panels or glossary sections should be considered.

Author Response

Please find our detailed responses in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and focuses on an important topic. However, there are some aspects that can be improved:

- The abstract has little focus on the actual content of the article, the objective - after reading the full article text - seems to be the 3D airspace map in the various classifications from A to G, in order to provide useful information for airspace users. However, if this is the objective, it is not really clear from the abstract, which should be revised.

- As for the keywords, it is not clear why "transport demand" has been considered, because it does not appear to be relevant in the article.

- Some phrases (e.g., US assertion of power, sovereign authority, and so on) are not useful for the development of the article, and as they seem to take an almost polemical tone it is suggested that they be avoided, as they do not provide any scientific contribution.

- Especially at the beginning of the article, the reader cannot identify which space of analysis is being considered - civil or military? It is preferable to make it clear in the abstract and the introduction section.

- The introduction mentions a “fourth dimension” - which should be the temporal dimension. This needs to be made clear from the beginning.

- Figure 2 is blurred, as are Figures 7-8-9-11, which are in fact not particularly helpful in clarifying aspects described in the text

- In the discussion part, it should also be commented whether and how this interactive 3D representation increases or decreases the safety and security aspects - particularly the latter.

- The text speaks of ‘polygons’, but the geometric representation - and formula (1) - seem to refer to rectangles. More precision is needed in the description of the geometric object being analysed

- If ‘restricted areas’ fall within a ‘polygon’, are these appropriately identified in the 3D map? Is the entire polygon considered restricted? This is not clear from the text

- Still in connection with the use of polygons, please discuss whether the necessary simplification adopted to bring the dataset back to mean sea level (page 8) may pose some risk to navigation.

 

Author Response

Please find our detailed responses in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In response to the questions raised by the reviewers, the author has revised the manuscript to align with the journal's requirements. However, the reviewers have provided additional suggestions for further improvement:
1. Incorporate a diagram to illustrate the overall workflow, highlighting challenges and corresponding solutions.
2. Elaborate on the visual design of airspace, which varies in size and type, encompassing aspects such as color and scale design.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Please find our responses in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments from the previous peer review have been duly addressed by the authors.

The improvements and integrations made in this new version significantly improve the readability and understanding of the proposed approach and the aim of the study.

Despite minor editing to conform to the journal template, the paper can be accepted as is.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your positive and constructive feedback.