A New Typification Method for Combined Linear Building Patterns with the Resolution of Spatial Conflicts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

MS#: ijgi-3454477

A new typification method of combined linear building patterns

This paper presents a novel method for typifying (generalizing) building structures for cartographic mapping based on a “combined-linear-building” idea. The new approach is well motivated and the underlying ideas and implementation are described in detail (e.g., how to detect linear building patterns and combined linear building patterns), which is very helpful. The effectiveness of the new generalization method is demonstrated on a small OSM dataset. Overall the reviewer appreciated this new cartographic generalization method and supports the publication of this manuscript in IJGI.

One major concern though is that the method requires a series of parameters (e.g., the thresholds described in Section 4.1), and they need to be determined by trial-and-error, which will hinder the adoption and/or automation of this method in cartography production (e.g., web-based maps). The reviewer suggests that the authors add more discussions regarding how to possibly automate the determination of these parameters for map generalization across a series of scales (e.g., when zooming in/out on a web map, building patterns are updated automatically using the proposed method).

It is even better if the authors can showcase the application of the method on such a web map (which would be a very good addition to the presentation of the work).

Author Response

Comments 1: One major concern though is that the method requires a series of parameters (e.g., the thresholds described in Section 4.1), and they need to be determined by trial-and-error, which will hinder the adoption and/or automation of this method in cartography production (e.g., web-based maps). The reviewer suggests that the authors add more discussions regarding how to possibly automate the determination of these parameters for map generalization across a series of scales (e.g., when zooming in/out on a web map, building patterns are updated automatically using the proposed method).

It is even better if the authors can showcase the application of the method on such a web map (which would be a very good addition to the presentation of the work).

Response 1: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added the discussion about the adoption of parameters in section 5.3 (line 572-590). And the comment about application of the method on a web map will inspire us to do further experiments. The addition of adoption parameters is shown as follows:

5.3 Adoption of parameters

Given that the detection of linear patterns involves many parameters, it is necessary to analyze the influences of these parameters on the extracted results. T_si, T_sh, and T_or are the similarity thresholds between buildings in terms of size, orientation, and shape. T_pa T_ma, and T_el are the thresholds used to determine whether the buildings are distributed along a defined line. All these parameters are less affected by scale changes. If these parameters are large, buildings recognized in a linear pattern will not comply with the visual perception of a human. For example, if T_sh = 2, the two buildings connected by the purple line in Figure 17(a) will be recognized as a linear pattern; if T_el = 2.3, the two buildings connected by the purple line in Figure 17(b) will be recognized as a part of a linear pattern. If these parameters are small, some human perceptual patterns may fail to be recognized. For example, if T_sh = 1.5, the two buildings connected by the purple line in Figure 17(d) cannot be recognized, and if T_ma = 5° for curvilinear patterns, the pattern in Figure 17(c) cannot be recognized. For the angle difference threshold of, T_pa, the permissible range is from 40° to 60°. Zhang [13] believes that the two values for their test cases showed almost no difference. Therefore, we chose 50 as a compromise value.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the issue of building pattern typification from a global perspective, overcoming the limitations of single linear pattern processing methods. It proposes an intelligent building pattern typification method suitable for high-density building environments. Below are some suggestions for the paper:

1. The title is not quite appropriate as it fails to reflect the innovative points of this article.
2. It is recommended to add line numbers in the document to facilitate review.
3. In §4.1 (Experiment), the authors determined the thresholds for shape differences, angle differences, etc., using the trial-and-error method. This section should be written in greater detail. Why was this method chosen? What was the process of trial and error? Are there other related studies that have also employed this method? If necessary, compare the trial-and-error method with other methods to demonstrate the advantages of this approach.
4. The labeling layout in Figure 4 is relatively cluttered, and overlapping of text with buildings or line segments should be avoided. Straight lines or arrows can be used to connect the labels to the corresponding sub-routes, ensuring that the labels are clear and easy to trace. Additionally, more distinct colors could be used to differentiate the sub-routes, such as assigning noticeably different colors to each sub-route and explaining their meanings in the legend.
5. While the paper proposes a new combined linear building pattern typification method and presents experimental results, it lacks a detailed comparison with other existing map generalization methods (e.g., single linear pattern typification methods). It only compares the proposed method with single linear building pattern typification and does not systematically compare it with more widely used mainstream methods or automated approaches (e.g., machine learning-based algorithms).
6. In §3.2.3.2, the author divides the resolution process into six positions: terminal-to-terminal, terminal-to-internal or terminal-to-junction, internal-to-internal, junction-to-internal, junction-to-junction, multiple conflicts. Suggest adding diagrams for each scenario to facilitate better understanding. Six schematic diagrams can be combined together and presented in one image.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The precision and logic of the language need to be further enhanced.

Author Response

Comments 1: The title is not quite appropriate as it fails to reflect the innovative points of this article.

Response 1: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have modified the title as “A new typification method for combined linear building patterns with the resolution of spatial conflicts”.

 

Comments 2: It is recommended to add line numbers in the document to facilitate review.

Response 2: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added line numbers in the manuscript.

 

Comments 3: In §4.1 (Experiment), the authors determined the thresholds for shape differences, angle differences, etc., using the trial-and-error method. This section should be written in greater detail. Why was this method chosen? What was the process of trial and error? Are there other related studies that have also employed this method? If necessary, compare the trial-and-error method with other methods to demonstrate the advantages of this approach.

Response 3: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added the discussion of adoption parameters in section 5.3(line 572-590) as follows:

Given that the detection of linear patterns involves many parameters, it is necessary to analyze the influences of these parameters on the extracted results. T_si, T_sh, and T_or are the similarity thresholds between buildings in terms of size, orientation, and shape. T_pa T_ma, and T_el are the thresholds used to determine whether the buildings are distributed along a defined line. All these parameters are less affected by scale changes. If these parameters are large, buildings recognized in a linear pattern will not comply with the visual perception of a human. For example, if T_sh = 2, the two buildings connected by the purple line in Figure 17(a) will be recognized as a linear pattern; if T_el = 2.3, the two buildings connected by the purple line in Figure 17(b) will be recognized as a part of a linear pattern. If these parameters are small, some human perceptual patterns may fail to be recognized. For example, if T_sh = 1.5, the two buildings connected by the purple line in Figure 17(d) cannot be recognized, and if T_ma = 5° for curvilinear patterns, the pattern in Figure 17(c) cannot be recognized. For the angle difference threshold of, T_pa, the permissible range is from 40° to 60°. Zhang [13] believes that the two values for their test cases showed almost no difference. Therefore, we chose 50 as a compromise value.

Figure 17. Examples of recognized linear patterns with changed parameters: (a) changed T_sh; (b) changed T_el; (c) changed T_ma; (d) changed T_si.

 

Comments 4: The labeling layout in Figure 4 is relatively cluttered, and overlapping of text with buildings or line segments should be avoided. Straight lines or arrows can be used to connect the labels to the corresponding sub-routes, ensuring that the labels are clear and easy to trace. Additionally, more distinct colors could be used to differentiate the sub-routes, such as assigning noticeably different colors to each sub-route and explaining their meanings in the legend.

Response 4: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have modified the text and the line segents to make sure the clarity of the figure. The modified figure is figure 5.

Figure 5. The sub-alignments of a combined linear pattern.

 

Comments 5: While the paper proposes a new combined linear building pattern typification method and presents experimental results, it lacks a detailed comparison with other existing map generalization methods (e.g., single linear pattern typification methods). It only compares the proposed method with single linear building pattern typification and does not systematically compare it with more widely used mainstream methods or automated approaches (e.g., machine learning-based algorithms).

Response 5: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added comparison with existing method(line 553-566) as follows:

To validate the effectiveness of the typification method in resolving spatial conflicts, two methods for individual linear building patterns are implemented for the experimental data, as shown in Figure 16. Figure 16(a) shows the result of using the building reconstruction method proposed in this study for linear patterns, and Figure 16(b) shows the result of using Gong and Wu’s method [4]. The results indicate that the proposed method can better maintain the spatial structures of combined linear patterns.

Quantitative analysis can further demonstrate the validity of our method. Table 1 shows the number of building pairs with conflicts and the number of linear building patterns in the typification method for combined linear patterns proposed in this study, as well as two comparison methods.

Figure 16. Compared typification results: (a) typification results of our individual linear building pattern method; (b) the typification results of Gong and Wu’s method [4].

Table 1 Performance evaluation for typification methods.

Typification method	Number of conflicting building pairs	Number of linear patterns
Typification method from Gong and Wu [4]	9	17
Typification method for individual linear patterns	14	22
Typification method for combined linear patterns	0	19

 

Comments 6: In §3.2.3.2, the author divides the resolution process into six positions: terminal-to-terminal, terminal-to-internal or terminal-to-junction, internal-to-internal, junction-to-internal, junction-to-junction, multiple conflicts. Suggest adding diagrams for each scenario to facilitate better understanding. Six schematic diagrams can be combined together and presented in one image.

Response 6: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added diagrams for three scenario without diagrams(line 490-513) are shown as follows:

An example of resolving a spatial conflict in the junction-to-internal type is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Two linear building patterns with junction-to-internal spatial conflicts: (a) buildings after typification inside combined linear patterns; (b) buildings with resolved spatial conflict between combined linear patterns.

An example of resolving a spatial conflict in the junction-to-junction type is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Two linear building patterns with junction-to-junction spatial conflicts: (a) buildings after typification inside combined linear patterns; (b) buildings with resolved spatial conflict between combined linear patterns.

An example of resolving multiple spatial conflicts is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Two linear building patterns with multiple spatial conflicts: (a) buildings after typification inside combined linear patterns; (b) buildings with resolved spatial conflict between combined linear patterns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a new method for typifying linear building patterns in map generalizations.

The authors’ method complements the current typification of linear building patterns by combining connected patterns to resolve conflicts and adequately preserve the spatial distribution of the patterns. The literature review looks comprehensive. Some figures could be improved. The results are visually convincing, although more formal assessments would consolidate this perception.

The approach seems promising. However, the main problem in doing justice to the authors’ work is the text and its structure. I would strongly suggest the authors look at the links below [1, 2] and adjust the text and its structure accordingly.

Regarding the text, sentences should be simplified and word repetition minimized to make it easier to read. The formulations used all over the text are too similar and make the reading tedious. For instance, the authors’ contribution is named “combined linear building models”, which is based on “linear building models” approaches. Both expressions are used throughout the text to sometimes describe a process in the proposed method, sometimes a typification method. Giving a distinct name to the proposed method will ease the reading.

The structure of the text deserves to be reviewed. Important methodological elements appear in the introduction. Some concepts and variables are described in the results section, whereas it would have been more useful for the reader to see them grouped in a method section, which is absent.

Detailed comments are provided in an annotated version of the manuscript uploaded with this report. Major issues are highlighted in red, minor issues in yellow, and positive/key statements in green.

[1] https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-13815490/

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228549945_RULES_OF_THUMB_FOR_WRITING_RESEARCH_ARTICLES

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript proposes a new method for typifying linear building patterns in map generalizations.

The authors’ method complements the current typification of linear building patterns by combining connected patterns to resolve conflicts and adequately preserve the spatial distribution of the patterns. The literature review looks comprehensive. Some figures could be improved. The results are visually convincing, although more formal assessments would consolidate this perception.

The approach seems promising. However, the main problem in doing justice to the authors’ work is the text and its structure. I would strongly suggest the authors look at the links below [1, 2] and adjust the text and its structure accordingly.

Regarding the text, sentences should be simplified and word repetition minimized to make it easier to read. The formulations used all over the text are too similar and make the reading tedious. For instance, the authors’ contribution is named “combined linear building models”, which is based on “linear building models” approaches. Both expressions are used throughout the text to sometimes describe a process in the proposed method, sometimes a typification method. Giving a distinct name to the proposed method will ease the reading.

The structure of the text deserves to be reviewed. Important methodological elements appear in the introduction. Some concepts and variables are described in the results section, whereas it would have been more useful for the reader to see them grouped in a method section, which is absent.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The approach seems promising. However, the main problem in doing justice to the authors’ work is the text and its structure. I would strongly suggest the authors look at the links below [1, 2] and adjust the text and its structure accordingly.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have delated the details in introduction and modified them more compatible in methodology.

 

Comments 1.1: Summarize. Details should be described in your Section 3 (Section 2 if the manuscript had followed the IJGI instructions to authors).

Response 1.1: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. The paragraph in introduction has been rewritten in lines 48-57 as follows:

We propose a new typification method for combined linear patterns to preserve the spatial distribution of building patterns while eliminating the spatial conflicts between buildings. Our work makes several contributions. Firstly, a detection method for combined linear patterns is proposed based on grouping detected linear patterns, and the significance of each linear building pattern within the combined linear patterns is calculated to evaluate their importance. Secondly, a method of solving spatial conflicts within combined linear patterns is proposed to maintain their spatial distribution, including their specific arrangement and overall outline. Finally, a method of solving spatial conflicts between combined linear patterns is provided to preserve the distinguishability between each one.

 

Comments 1.2: Identification of the relevant sections is not required here.

Response 1.2: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. The related paragraphs have been deleted in methodology.

 

Comments 2: Regarding the text, sentences should be simplified and word repetition minimized to make it easier to read. The formulations used all over the text are too similar and make the reading tedious. For instance, the authors’ contribution is named “combined linear building models”, which is based on “linear building models” approaches. Both expressions are used throughout the text to sometimes describe a process in the proposed method, sometimes a typification method. Giving a distinct name to the proposed method will ease the reading.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have simplified the expression in the manuscript such as revising "combined linear building patterns" to "combined linear patterns", etc.. And we have deleted all the sentences that were marked by experts as repetitive in the manuscript. We also have modified the ambiguous equations in the manuscript.

 

Comments 3: The structure of the text deserves to be reviewed. Important methodological elements appear in the introduction. Some concepts and variables are described in the results section, whereas it would have been more useful for the reader to see them grouped in a method section, which is absent.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. The description of concepts in introduction and conclusion are adjusted to the section of methodology.

 

The responses to the annotated comments in the manuscript are as follows.

 

Comments 4.1: The overall explanation is relevant for the lay reader. However, since these Gestalt principles are well covered in the literature, I suggest you summarize each concept (i.e. proximity, similarity, ...) in one or two sentences with appropriate references, providing equations only if needed later.

Response 4.1: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have summarize the concept of Gestalt principles in a few sentences in lines 137-140 as follows:

According to the gestalt principles of perceptual grouping, objects tend to be regarded as a whole when they are close, similar, and regularly aligned with each other. In other words, the distribution of buildings should follow proximity, similarity, and continuity [13].

 

Comments 4.2: This criterion is much more detailed than the similarity or proximity criteria. (See previous comments).The level of detail given to the reader varies considerably depending on the concepts/variables described, although they all seem equally important. Be sure to provide the level of detail required, no less, no more.

Response 4.2: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have balanced the level of detail between paragraphs describing the characteristic of linear patterns by deleting some details in continuity and adding some necessary details in similarity (lines 155-161).

 

Comments 4.3: Simplify your sentences. Repetitive words make it difficult to read. For example, this sentence might look more like: When there are common buildings between linear building patterns, these patterns form a more complex pattern. This applies to the whole manuscript.

Response 4.3: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have simplified relative sentences in lines 192-193. And all the repetitive words in the manuscript have been simplified.

 

Comments 4.4: It's repetitive. Explain it clearly once in the text, then use the term later without further explanation.

Response 4.4: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have deleted relative sentences.

 

Comments 4.5: Does this refer to the criteria previously described (proximity, similarity, and continuity)? If so, use criteria formulations. If not, define these terms.

Response 4.5: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have added the relative description in lines 208-210 which is “The spacing value is the minimum distance between two successive buildings. The remaining three aspects measure each building in linear patterns using the same parameters in similarity.”

 

Comments 4.6: What are junction buildings? Although the meaning may be intuitive, it must be formally defined here.

Response 4.6: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have added the definition of junction buildings in line 217-218 which is “If a building is an element in more than one linear pattern, it is defined as a junction building.”

 

Comments 4.7: Standardize the presentation of parameters/criteria. For instance, above you present “Continuity” and “Similarity” without numeric identifiers.

Response 4.7: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have modified the description of density in lines 238-245 as follows:”The black–white ratio measures the density of building patterns. The black–white ratio of a linear pattern is defined as the ratio of the pathway length inside buildings to the total pathway length. In Figure 4, the black–white ratio of a linear pattern, denoted as D_l, is represented as the ratio of the total length of solid segments to the total length of all segments. The black–white ratio of a combined linear pattern is defined by Formula (7).

where n refers to the number of linear patterns in a combined linear pattern. The black–white ratio of a combined linear pattern should be less than the threshold, T_bw. ”

 

Comments 4.8: What happens in other cases?

Response 4.8: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have added the statement of circumstances where conditions are not met in line 251-252 as “Otherwise, other generalized operators should be considered, but this falls beyond the scope of this study and will not be elaborated on.”

 

Comments 4.9: The concept of conflict within and between patterns has not yet been properly explained. Please define it.

Response 4.9: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have added the concept of conflict within and between patterns in line 262-265 and 268-272 as follows.

“However, if there is not enough space to display multiple linear building patterns in a combined linear pattern—meaning there are spatial conflicts between the buildings in the same combined linear pattern—linear patterns and buildings with less significance must be discarded.

In addition, there should be enough space between different combined linear patterns; that is, the distances between two buildings located in different combined linear patterns should be greater than the minimum separation threshold. Otherwise, spatial conflicts will arise between combined linear patterns.”

 

Comments 4.10: Simplify the figure so that the reader can see the sub-alignments at first glance.

Response 4.10: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. The modified figure is figure 5.

Figure 5. The sub-alignments of a combined linear pattern.

 

Comments 4.11: I may have missed something in the text, but the examples in Figures 5 and 6 do not show consistent results. In both cases, the buildings in Pattern 1 are simplified (deletion and displacement), which is what expected. However, after merging lateral buildings, Figure 5 show neither deletion nor displacement, while those in Figure 6 show deletion but (almost?) no displacement. Please explain/adapt your figures.

Response 4.11: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. It is our mistake to confuse two cases, it is actually two different patterns, we change the pattern name in figures to clearly distinguish two different types in line 388.

 

Comments 4.12: The numbering is a bit excessive. Three digits are usually the maximum used.

Response 4.12: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have changed the numbering in the manuscript.

 

Comments 4.13: At first glance (without reading every word of the caption), the reader gets the impression that your results are presented in (d), which is a terrible mistake. You should present side by side the original dataset (a) and the result obtained using conventional linear patterns (b). Then show how your approach defines the linear patterns (c) and the results obtained (d).

Response 4.13: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. The modified figures are figure 15 and figure 16.

Figure 15. Dataset and typification results: (a) an original building dataset; (b) detection of linear building patterns; (c) typification results of the method proposed in this study.

Figure 16. Compared typification results: (a) typification results of our individual linear building pattern method; (b) the typification results of Gong and Wu’s method [4].

 

 

Comments 4.14: Although your approach uses conventional linear building patterns, combining them as you do makes the approach unique. Give it a name that clearly distinguishes your approach from conventional ones (i.e. linear only). Make it clear throughout the manuscript that there are conventional approaches and yours. Everything is too closely linked in the text, making it difficult for the reader to distinguish your contribution.

Response 4.14: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have renamed our approach as the “typification method for combined linear patterns” in the manuscript.

 

Comments 4.15: I would present your results after those using conventional linear patterns. It is more conventional to show the results in a before/after mode.

Response 4.15: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have modified table 1 as follows.

Table 1 Performance evaluation for typification methods.

Typification method	Number of conflicting building pairs	Number of linear patterns
Typification method from Gong and Wu [4]	9	17
Typification method for individual linear patterns	14	22
Typification method for combined linear patterns	0	19

 

Comments 4.16: See previous comments on word repetition. For example, "building" appears 19 times here, even though the reader knows that this is the subject of the proposed method.

Response 4.16: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have modified the conclusion in lines 592-603 as follows.

Linear building patterns intersecting with each other can form more complex combined linear patterns, increasing the difficulty of typifying these buildings. In this study, combined linear patterns are recognized using the common buildings in linear patterns, and the significance of each linear pattern in a combined linear pattern is analyzed. Then, to maintain spatial distribution characteristics, relevant buildings are typified. Finally, to preserve the distinguishability of each building pattern, conflict buildings from different combined linear patterns are resolved. The experimental results show that linear pattern characteristics can be preserved. Furthermore, the particular structures and hierarchical characteristics of the combined linear patterns can be captured and preserved in the typification results. In future research, more effort will be made to focus on the collaboration between typification and other map generalization operators for building groups.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes an innovative typification approach for combined linear building patterns to address spatial conflicts in map generalization. The research addresses practical needs with methodological novelty and sufficient experimental validation. As for the general writing, the article is well structured and the main contribution is clear.

this manuscript may be accepted after minor modification as below.

1. It is recommended to include a flowchart in the method description to illustrate the typification process.
2. Some variables in the formulas only provide their conceptual explanations but lack clarification on their calculation methods, such as "Diffi" in the formula.
3. When conflicts cannot be resolved for terminal buildings through displacement, would deleting them lead to data loss? If so, how should the data loss be compensated?
4. This paper assumes linear buildings with defined orientation attributes as default processing targets. However, Figure 7 contains vectorized shapes that appear square. How is their orientation determined in such cases? Does this square or circle shape vectors incompatible with the proposed method?

Author Response

Comments 1: It is recommended to include a flowchart in the method description to illustrate the typification process.

Response 1: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added a flowchart in the beginning of methodology(lines 128-133) is shown as follows:

Our method follows the local typification practice. Combined linear patterns are first recognized, and then typification is achieved by resolving spatial conflicts inside and between them. A flowchart of combined linear pattern typification is shown in Figure 2, and the following sections describe the main methods proposed in this study.

Figure 2. Flowchart of combined linear pattern typification.

 

Comments 2: Some variables in the formulas only provide their conceptual explanations but lack clarification on their calculation methods, such as "Diffi" in the formula.

Response 2: Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have modified the ambiguous formula and the description(lines 164-166) as follows:

(1)

where T_si, T_sh, and T_or refer to the difference thresholds in the sizes, shapes, and orientations of two buildings. A is the area of a building, E is the edge count of a polygon, and O is the main orientation of the smallest bounding rectangle of a building.

 

Comments 3: When conflicts cannot be resolved for terminal buildings through displacement, would deleting them lead to data loss? If so, how should the data loss be compensated?

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer's question. We have added the discussion of the data quality in the map generalization of building patterns(lines 418-423) as follows:

In building pattern generalization, data quality focuses on the existence and spatial distribution of patterns rather than individual buildings. Therefore, buildings with such spatial conflicts should be adjusted. These buildings can be located at the terminal, junction, or internal parts of linear building patterns. The resolution and priority of spatial conflicts for buildings in different positions are different.

 

Comments 4: This paper assumes linear buildings with defined orientation attributes as default processing targets. However, Figure 7 contains vectorized shapes that appear square. How is their orientation determined in such cases? Does this square or circle shape vectors incompatible with the proposed method?

Response 4:

We appreciate the reviewer's question. We have added the consideration of the square and circle(lines 155-161) as follows:

Differences in orientation are measured by the difference between the main directions of the smallest bounding rectangles of two buildings. There are two special circumstances in orientation calculation. If a building is square, it has two main directions. Both main directions calculate the square building’s orientation differences from other buildings, and the smallest is chosen as the final result. If a building is circular, it has no sole direction to compare with other buildings. In this situation, the orientation difference is set to 0.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues have been carefully considered and addressed, and the revised version meets the reviewers' expectations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a new method for typifying linear building patterns in map generalizations.

The authors’ method complements the current typification of linear building patterns by combining connected patterns to resolve conflicts and adequately preserve the spatial distribution of the patterns.

Although the authors did not modify the structure of the manuscript as suggested, the improvements made to the text are better than expected (resulting from other reviewers' comments?). More detailed explanations and figures make the approach easier to understand and the reading significantly more engaging.

At this point, I simply suggest that the authors modify Figure 16 to present their results (duplicate Figure 15c in Figure 16).