The C2G Framework to Convert Infrastructure Data from Computer-Aided Design (CAD) to Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments

Some problems must be repaired prior to publication. It needs some significant improvement. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. The abstract should be written in a precise format. Authors should eliminate certain common facts from the abstract to make it more relevant & discuss the important findings.
2. The input design parameters involved in this work needs through explanation
3. Results are not presented clearly or comprehensively.
4. All figures should replace the high-resolution image.
5. Please summarize the application background, implementation methods, and empirical results in the conclusion section, and supplement the future research prospects
6. A paragraph about CAD information needs to be included in introduction  
7. How GIS Shapefiles are created from CAD layers needs to be discussed  
8. Coordinate system projection is an important parameter, was not included in the study.  
9. Suggested measures to clean the data  
10. Steps to remove topological errors were not discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript present a study that proposes the C2G framework to streamline the conversion process while minimizing information loss. The authors argue the need to convert CAD data to GIS as a result of the analysis performed and also apply the C2G framework in a case study using underground stormwater infrastructure data from the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) campus.

The proposed method was validated by results of application and by the ability to resolve the conversion problems raised by the interviewees.

The subject of the manuscript is interesting and can be very useful for municipalities, but has a major disadvantage because the authors does not highlights the novelty elements and the research is not realized by innovative procedures. The authors should highlight the need for this study as well as the novelties they bring

The manuscript is correctly written, the information is clearly presented to be easy for the reader to understand

However, a number of modifications are required, if are made it, the manuscript can be published successfully.

1. The abstract is general and doesn’t’ follow the style of structured abstracts. The abstract must contain the purpose of the paper, the methods used in the research and a brief presentation of the results and conclusions. In this case the abstract isn’t an objective representation of the paper, the second part of the abstract is a little ambiguous.
2. Introduction: The introduction should contain besides purpose, the relevance of the research, the authors need to highlights the novelty elements of the study and the methodology used. I can’t realize the innovation part of the paper, the innovative procedures? What is the contribution exactly?
3. 1. Municpal Employees Interviews and 2.2. Reported Challenges in the Conversion Process. In my opinion, the data in these sections should be presented more concretely. Interview items should be presented and what exactly you followed with this interview. Also, the answers should be presented in the form of concrete categories as well as the challenges. It is okay to present the answers in the form of quotes, but presenting them in a more concrete form provides a better understanding of the paper.
4. The conclusions of the study are insignificant and the first part is in opposition to the purpose and objectives of the study, practically you argue that such a procedure is not appropriate. Or this is exactly what you should prove, the usefulness of this study.
5.  Step 5: GIS Data Cleaning. Row 461 ”We would prefer to have them converted into points.” It's not clear why you didn't convert to points, if that's what you wanted. Can you argue?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper represents an important and useful contribution to solving a problem that affects not only architects, engineers and urban planners but also many other disciplines.
Indeed, it would be interesting if in the introduction the authors showed that they are aware of the breadth of disciplines that the problem analyzed in their paper touches. I am thinking, for example, of geology or archaeology that make extensive use of both CAD and GIS.

INTRODUCTION. The introduction is clear and well-drafted. All the previous issues and the general state-of-the-art have been thoroughly explained. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS. These are concise and well explained. I particularly appreciated the first step "Municipal Employees Interview" which directly addresses the daily issues encountered by practitioners. However, the number of practitioners interviewed is quite low and one might wonder if it is really representative. It is therefore important that the authors justify this number by explaining better why it is sufficient for their scopes. A suggestion could be to better explain how semi-structured interviews work also stressing the qualitative value.

Another important point concerns the use of ArcGIS. Why do they prefer ArcGIS software over an open source one like QGIS (which, for example, is also widely used in other disciplines that often face the problem of CAD-GIS conversion)?
A similar question concerns the choice of AutoCAD. Why not an open-source software?
It is necessary to dedicate a few lines to the explanation of the choice of software. Are these software the ones most used by actors? Do they have features that make them more efficient and effective in solving this type of problem?

I appreciated the clarity and detail with which the problems encountered in each step of the methodology are explained.

CASE STUDY. The fact that the first step 1 is actually missing, partially weakens the adequacy of the case study. The attempt to simulate this step only partially mitigates this problem. A greater level of detail is therefore required in identifying, for example, the actors and also in specifying their needs.

It would have been interesting at the end of the research to have the method tested by both the actors who have been identified (municipalities, organizations and other practitioners) as well as other potential ones (academics of other disciplines for example). I understand that this is a step out of the scope of this paper but the author may consider including it in the future outlook of their research as a further step in validating their method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx