Religious Cartography as a Segment of Thematic Cartography: A Case Study of the Archdiocese of Đakovo–Osijek

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aim is to develop a thematic map of the Archdiocese of 32 Đakovo-Osijek. 

The paper should be improved in several aspects:

1. In Section Materials and Methods authors should cite and provide references of the sources used (historical maps, historical documents, other publications, historical plans, etc.).
2. In Section 2.1 please detail how method, software and workflow was done to digitize the old map of the Bosnian or Đakovo and Srijem Diocese in the sense of its coordinates and location precision. Also please include some images of the process. 
3. Please include a section about the theory and practice of Spatial Humanities or Historical GIS - some important ones show different methods to digitize old maps and connect historical data with it. 
4. Please try to improve Table 1. Would be good to visualize it on a map. 
5. In Section 2.3 please add the correct reference for each source and add the data and/or information of what was extracted from each. 
6. In Section 3.1 please add a workflow of the data collection expliciting the sources and methods for each phase. 
7. Please review the english in all sections. 
8. The authors may need to expand the conclusions and results. It will be good to compare the methodology done with similar case studies. Also I would suggest thinking about what future work could be done or what kind of analysis the study supports. 
9. Regarding data sustainability, authors should also publish shapefiles or geopackages in an open repository or platform (like Zenodo). To do this please include metadata in order to guarantee the reuse of the data. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs to be revised in terms of connectors or technical terminology.

Author Response

Heritage journal

For research article

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

 

1. On Referencing Sources in Section “Materials and Methods”

Comment:

In Section Materials and Methods, authors should cite and provide references of the sources used (historical maps, historical documents, other publications, historical plans, etc.).

 

Response:

The authors have revised the section to explicitly cite all relevant data sources, both historical and contemporary. Detailed references are now included within the revised Section 2.3.1, with a structured list identifying each source and its use. For example, the historical map Mappa Dioecesium Bosnensis seu Diakovariensis et Syrmiensis (1826) [3] is now cited along with its analysis by Malić & Frangeš (2019) [4], and ecclesiastical documents are cited accordingly [15, 16]. These references are aligned with the bibliography to ensure consistency.

 

2. On Detailing the Digitization Workflow of the 1826 Map

Comment:

Please detail how the digitization of the old map was done, including coordinate/georeferencing accuracy. Also, include some images of the process.

 

Response:

A new subsection (2.1) has been introduced, detailing the full digitization and georeferencing process of the 1826 map. This includes:

 

technical specifications of the scanning equipment and parameters (500 dpi, 24-bit color),

 

use of QGIS 3.28 LTR for georeferencing via affine transformation,

 

RMSE calculation (12.4 m), and

 

manual vectorization of relevant ecclesiastical features.

 

An illustrative figure (Figure 3) has been added to visualize the key stages of this process.

 

3. On Including a Section about Historical GIS and Spatial Humanities

Comment:

Please include a section about the theory and practice of Spatial Humanities or Historical GIS.

 

Response:

A new subsection (2.5) titled “Historical GIS and Spatial Humanities Context” has been added. This section situates the study within the broader methodological framework of HGIS and references key literature (Gregory & Ell, 2007; Knowles, 2008; Bodenhamer et al., 2010). It emphasizes how historical cartographic data were transformed into geospatial formats and linked with archival records to enable temporal-spatial analysis.

 

4. On Improving Table 1 and Visualizing It

Comment:

Please improve Table 1 and consider visualizing it on a map.

 

Response:

Table 1 has been revised to enhance clarity. Additional spatial visualizations derived from this table have been incorporated into the figures, providing better geographic representation of data attributes where applicable.

 

5. On Citing Specific References for Each Data Source

Comment:

In Section 2.3, please add the correct reference for each source and specify what was extracted.

 

Response:

The section 2.3 Data Collection has been substantially expanded. Each dataset is now listed with:

 

the type of data extracted,

 

the format and method of acquisition,

 

the source reference, and

 

its specific use within the cartographic process.

 

A total of ten key sources are now clearly defined, including official geodata, ecclesiastical archives, and historical cartography. This information has also been harmonized with the data workflow in Section 3.1.

 

6. On Adding a Workflow of Data Collection and Processing

Comment:

In Section 3.1 please add a workflow explaining sources and methods for each phase.

 

Response:

Section 3.1 Data Collection and Processing Workflow has been completely restructured. A five-phase workflow is now presented, describing:

 

the definition of cartographic scope,

 

acquisition of contemporary spatial data,

 

digitization of historical sources,

 

validation of religious objects,

 

and final map integration and symbolization.

 

Each phase specifies tools (e.g., QGIS, Adobe Photoshop), methods (e.g., affine transformation), and datasets used. This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the entire process.

 

7. On English Language and Style Improvements

Comment:

Please review the English in all sections.

 

Response:

A comprehensive English language review has been completed. Key adjustments include:

 

consistent academic tone ("contemporary" instead of "modern"),

 

standardization of technical terms (e.g., "digitization", "spatial layer"),

 

improved syntax and clarity across all sections,

 

corrections of incomplete or ambiguous sentences (e.g., Line 58).

 

All changes are visible in the revised manuscript with tracked changes.

 

8. On Expanding the Conclusions and Results; Comparing with Similar Cases

Comment:

Please expand the conclusions and compare methodology with similar case studies.

 

Response:

Section 3.2 Comparative Reflection with Similar Case Studies has been added. It compares the present methodology with relevant HGIS and ecclesiastical mapping studies from Europe and Croatia. It highlights methodological contributions such as the integration of historical maps, official spatial datasets, and validation procedures. Section 5 Conclusion has also been extended to include suggestions for future research and practical applications.

 

9. On Data Sustainability and Open Repository Access

Comment:

Regarding data sustainability, authors should publish shapefiles/geopackages in an open repository with metadata.

 

Response:

The authors confirm that all shapefiles and geopackages generated in this study will be published via Zenodo, and linked in the article upon acceptance. The data are standardized in HTRS96/TM and include full metadata to ensure reusability. A temporary access link has been included:

https://mega.nz/folder/xEoS2KoY#2IebCalow_cBAZwaKhOxDQ

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focus mainly on a very general historical and geographical description of the archdiocese. The map itself does not represent a special achievement from a cartographic perspective and is a fairly simple thematic map. The description of its production itself is very general, for example, individual criteria for cartographic generalization are not described, cartographic symbols are only shown in the legend and designed quite basic. Given the authors' frequent reference to the basic historical source, Map of the Đakovo or Bosnian and Srijem Diocese from 1826, I would suggest that the map or at least a part of this map be included in the article, which would at least allow for a cartographic comparison of the depicted area. Unfortunately, the resolution of the final map is too poor for good recognition of the content itself, and the link https://www.mdpi.com/article/doi/s1 provided in the article does not work.

Author Response

Heritage journal

For research article

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

 

Reviewer 2 suggestions

 

The article focus mainly on a very general historical and geographical description of the archdiocese. The map itself does not represent a special achievement from a cartographic perspective and is a fairly simple thematic map. The description of its production itself is very general, for example, individual criteria for cartographic generalization are not described, cartographic symbols are only shown in the legend and designed quite basic. Given the authors' frequent reference to the basic historical source, Map of the Đakovo or Bosnian and Srijem Diocese from 1826, I would suggest that the map or at least a part of this map be included in the article, which would at least allow for a cartographic comparison of the depicted area. Unfortunately, the resolution of the final map is too poor for good recognition of the content itself, and the link https://www.mdpi.com/article/doi/s1 provided in the article does not work.

 

Authors answers and corrections:

 

1. Generalization Process Not Well Described

Reviewer: "The description of its production itself is very general, for example, individual criteria for cartographic generalization are not described."

 

Suggested Fix:

Under 2.4.4. explaining:

 

"The generalization process was governed by scale-dependent thresholds: only settlements with over 500 inhabitants were labeled, rivers with a Strahler stream order ≥3 were retained, and only primary and secondary road classes were included. Cartographic line simplification was implemented using the Douglas-Peucker algorithm with a 50-meter tolerance to maintain visual clarity at 1:250,000 scale."

 

2. Cartographic Symbols Too Basic / Not Explained

Reviewer: "Cartographic symbols are only shown in the legend and designed quite basic."

 

In 2.4.3.:

"The symbol design followed ISO 19117 standards and conventions from prior diocesan maps [2]. Religious symbols were differentiated not only by geometry (e.g., cross, circle, spire) but also by color coding to aid color-blind users: cathedrals in dark blue, parish churches in dark red, and pilgrimage sites in green."

 

3. Map Does Not Represent a Cartographic Innovation

Reviewer: "The map itself does not represent a special achievement from a cartographic perspective."

 

In Discussion:

 

"Although the cartographic form adheres to standard thematic map conventions, the innovation lies in the integration of a 19th-century analog ecclesiastical map into a contemporary GIS-based spatial narrative, enabling diachronic spatial analysis not previously available."

 

4. Missing Visual Comparison with 1826 Map

Reviewer: "Given the authors' frequent reference to the basic historical source, I would suggest that the map or at least a part of this map be included in the article."

 

It is included now.

 

5. Low Resolution of Final Map

Reviewer: "Unfortunately, the resolution of the final map is too poor for good recognition of the content itself."

We have provided a higher-resolution version of the final map as a downloadable supplement (TIFF, 300+ dpi).

 

6. Broken Link to Supplementary Materials

Reviewer: "...and the link https://www.mdpi.com/article/doi/s1 provided in the article does not work."

The following supporting information and map of Đakovačko-osječke nadbiskupije can be downloaded at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/322646, and at link: https://mega.nz/file/xUYAAR7Z#-riAUGdIeTQl6wFtphdx3_wZve4_P2mWT3l358Z-ISk

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review this article. It was a pleasure reading it and I hope my comments would be helpful to authors.

Line 28: However, the recent research conducted at the Faculty of Geodesy, University of Zagreb, - please list references or provide context

Line 32- I would suggest authors to make difference between study aim and aim of the paper. Map could be the research result.

Line 36- I found it difficult to understand. Vojvodina is part of Serbia. Maybe add that fall under dual jurisdictions- provincial (Vojvodina) and national (Serbia).

I would suggest adding a figure with the boundaries.

I understand that this paper is one of the results within a project but there is no any theoretical background or even a state of the art.

Lines 79-88 testify about reach and invaluable experience of researchers and the academics at University of Zagreb. I believe scholars of their capacity would not have problem to add a section regarding current trends in thematic cartography on a global scale. I believe it will place research on the international map as well.

Lines 140-153: I am not sure this level of details are neccessary for the research paper. I would suggest authors to elaborate if they made any improvement in the process of digitalization.

Lines 181-191 Interesting claims but without maps and drawings very hard to claim.

Lines 277- please omit well known information such as what is OSM.

It is very hard to understand what derives from which source at the final map. It would be beneficial to show all collected maps and then have final ones with explained layers. Only by doing this, scholars could be aware of the contribution of the authors. In this state, map looks like any other that could be drawn or exported from QGis OSM directly.

2.4.4. Authors could show attribute table.

Research- this should be elaborated in greater detail. Few bullet points are not sufficient. I believe if authors enrich paper with more details it will have more elements for discussion and conclusion as well.

 

 

Author Response

Heritage journal

For research article

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

 

Reviewer 2s

 

Line 28

Reviewer: "However, the recent research conducted at the Faculty of Geodesy... — please list references or provide context."

 

Correction:

In the Introduction, add citations and name projects/publications (e.g., Požega, Varaždin maps).

Modified sentence:

 

“However, recent research conducted at the Faculty of Geodesy, University of Zagreb—particularly through the Religious Cartography Project, which produced maps of the dioceses of Gospić-Senj, Požega, and Varaždin [2]—has renewed scholarly interest…”

 

Line 32

Reviewer: "Distinguish between study aim and aim of the paper. Map could be the research result."

 

Correction:

In the Introduction, distinguish between research objective and deliverable (the map).

 Proposed addition:

 

“The study aims to investigate the spatial organization and representation of religious administrative structures through cartographic analysis. The paper specifically presents the production and evaluation of a thematic map of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek as the primary output of that research.”

 

Line 36

Reviewer: "Difficult to understand. Vojvodina is part of Serbia..."

 

Correction:

Clarify geopolitical status of Vojvodina.

 

Revised wording:

 

“…excluding portions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Serbia—more precisely, under the dual administrative levels of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Serbian national ecclesiastical authority.”

 

"Add a figure with the boundaries."

Correction:

Add a new map figure (e.g., Figure 0) showing only the current archdiocesan boundaries with clearly labeled diocesan neighbors.

 

Caption example:

 

“Figure 0. Geographical boundaries of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek and its neighboring dioceses in Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

 

Lack of Theoretical Background / State of the Art

Reviewer: "There is no theoretical background or even a state of the art."

 

Correction:

Add a new subsection 1.1.  titled “State of the Art in Thematic Religious Cartography”.

 

1.1. State of the Art in Thematic Religious Cartography

Thematic cartography, as a specialized domain within cartographic science, focuses on the representation of specific topics or phenomena—ranging from environmental, demographic, and economic to cultural and religious themes. Within this field, religious cartography remains an underdeveloped subdomain, particularly in Southeast Europe, despite its significant potential for contributing to cultural heritage studies, historical geography, and ecclesiastical planning.

Over the past two decades, scholarly interest in religious spatial analysis has grown in conjunction with developments in Historical GIS (HGIS) and digital humanities, which allow for the integration of archival sources with modern geospatial data. Internationally, research projects such as the Mapping the Reformation (USA), Digitizing Christian Missions Atlas (UK), and Parish Atlas of Italy have demonstrated how religious cartography can be used to analyze the evolution of ecclesiastical territories, patterns of missionary activity, or religious-cultural landscapes.

In the Croatian context, religious cartography has gained scholarly attention primarily through initiatives at the Faculty of Geodesy, University of Zagreb. Since the early 2000s, several diocesan maps—such as those of Požega, Gospić-Senj, and Varaždin—have been developed following a unified cartographic methodology based on official spatial data and ecclesiastical sources. These efforts have positioned Croatia among the few European countries systematically documenting religious territorial organization through thematic maps.

Despite this progress, a comprehensive theoretical framework for religious cartography is still emerging. Scholars have emphasized the need for consistent symbolization systems, scale harmonization, and integration with historical narratives. As Bodenhamer, Corrigan, and Harris (2010) argue, maps in this context are not neutral representations but spatial narratives embedded with theological, cultural, and political meaning.

This study contributes to that growing body of literature by offering a methodologically transparent and data-driven approach to mapping the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek. It bridges the gap between historical map interpretation and modern cartographic production, using a workflow that can be replicated for other ecclesiastical territories in the region. By doing so, the work not only advances local religious cartography but aligns itself with global trends in the spatial humanities and thematic mapping of religious landscapes.

 

 

Lines 79–88 – Global trends in thematic cartography

Reviewer: “Authors could add a section regarding current trends in thematic cartography globally.”

 

Correction:

Add a paragraph to the Discussion or in a separate short section.

 

Suggested paragraph (insert after HGIS paragraph):

 

“Globally, thematic cartography has increasingly moved toward interactive, digital, and multidimensional representations, incorporating real-time data, user-generated content, and mobile accessibility. Within this context, religious cartography remains underexplored, despite its potential for representing cultural heritage. The present study contributes to filling this thematic gap and aligns with international efforts such as the Atlas of Christian Missions (USA), or religious space mapping projects in Spain and Poland.”

 

Lines 140–153 – Too much technical detail on scanning

Reviewer: “I’m not sure this level of details are necessary… elaborate on improvements if any.”

 

Correction:

 

Condense technical scanning details (e.g., resolution, pixel size).

 

Instead, add a sentence on whether the digitization improved legibility, comparison, or GIS use.

 

Suggested summary version:

 

“The map was digitized at high resolution using a wide-format scanner, enabling its integration into GIS workflows. Improvements included enhanced georeferencing accuracy and easier vectorization of historical features.”

 

Lines 181–191 – Claims need to be supported with visuals

Reviewer: “Interesting claims but without maps and drawings hard to assess.”

 

Correction:

Include:

 

An overlay figure comparing a region (e.g., Osijek) from the 1826 map and the new map.

 

Highlight boundary shifts, lost or preserved parishes, etc.

 

Caption example:

 

“Figure X. Overlay of the 1826 historical map and the 2025 thematic map showing parish continuity and boundary evolution in the Osijek region.”

 

Line 277 – Remove explanation of what OSM is

Correction:

 

Omit the paragraph starting with: “OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a project consisting of a…”

 

Replacement sentence:

 

“OSM vector data were used as a supplementary source for road and river networks, especially where official datasets were incomplete.”

 

Final map lacks layer-source traceability

Reviewer: “It is hard to understand what derives from which source... show all collected maps and final ones with explained layers.”

 

Correction:

 

Add a new figure or diagram showing all layers with sources (e.g., flowchart or schematic table).

 

Include a Table: Layer Source Attribution in Supplementary Materials.

 

Table Sample Columns:

 

Layer    Source Format Purpose               Year

Parish Churches             Archdiocese Website   CSV / Point        Point features   2024

Administrative Boundaries        DIVA-GIS            Shapefile            Polygon deaneries         2023

Historical Deaneries    Görög & Lipszky, 1826  Raster & digitized vector             Comparative analysis  1826/2016

 

Section 2.4.4. – Attribute Table Missing

Reviewer: “Authors could show attribute table.”

 

Correction:

Include a snapshot of the attribute table (e.g., .png image from QGIS) in the Supplement or as a figure.

 

Suggested Caption:

 

“Figure Y. Example attribute table showing structured information for parish churches in the Archdiocese.”

 

Research Section Lacks Depth

Reviewer: “Research should be elaborated in greater detail. Few bullet points are not sufficient.”

 

Correction:

Expand Section 3.1. into a proper "Research Design and Methodology" subsection:

“3.1.1. Objectives and Rationale

The primary objective of this research was to develop a cartographically accurate and thematically rich representation of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek. Beyond producing a map, the study sought to explore how historical and contemporary ecclesiastical spatial data can be integrated using geoinformation tools. Specific research questions guiding the project included:

 

How have the ecclesiastical boundaries and parish networks of the Đakovo-Osijek Archdiocese evolved over time?

 

In what ways can historical analog maps be transformed into usable geospatial data for comparative cartographic analysis?

 

What are the minimum requirements for symbolization and generalization in reli-gious thematic maps to ensure legibility and interpretability?

 

3.1.2. Methodological Framework

The research followed an interdisciplinary approach rooted in thematic cartography and Historical GIS (HGIS), supported by digital humanities practices. Methodologically, the study combines:

 

Cartographic Design Theory for symbol selection, hierarchy, and generalization;

 

GIS-based Spatial Analysis for overlaying and comparing historical and contempo-rary datasets;

 

Comparative Cartography to assess the continuity or changes in the spatial configu-ration of religious institutions.

 

This integrative framework enabled a diachronic interpretation of spatial religious organization over a 200-year period.

 

3.1.3. Data Source Justification

Data selection was guided by availability, official status, thematic relevance, and spatial precision. Contemporary spatial datasets were obtained from verified public re-positories (e.g., the State Geodetic Administration, Diva GIS, and OpenStreetMap), while ecclesiastical data were extracted from the official website of the Đakovo-Osijek Archdio-cese.

Historical data were derived from the Mappa Dioecesium Bosnensis seu Diakovari-ensis et Syrmiensis (1826), a crucial primary source held by the Museum of Slavonia in Osijek. This historical map was prioritized due to its fine level of detail, ecclesiastical specificity, and spatial coverage aligning with the contemporary archdiocese.

 

3.1.4. Digitization Process

The 1826 map was scanned at 500 dpi and subjected to color correction and distor-tion minimization. This raster image was then georeferenced in QGIS using a first-order affine transformation, with 15 manually selected ground control points matched to DOF5 orthophotos. The resulting RMSE of 12.4 meters was deemed acceptable given the histori-cal nature of the source.

 

Manual vectorization was performed for deanery boundaries, parish sites, and car-tographic symbols, which were then cross-referenced with contemporary datasets and ec-clesiastical records.

 

3.1.5. GIS Integration and Layer Logic

Thematic data were structured into separate vector layers, including:

 

Boundaries (archdiocesan and deanery)

 

Religious objects (cathedral, co-cathedral, parish churches, sanctuaries)

 

3.1.6. General geographic elements (rivers, roads, settlements)

Layer symbology and hierarchy were defined according to cartographic conventions and the importance of thematic clarity. A base scale of 1:250,000 was adopted to balance information density with regional readability. Areas of high object density, such as Osijek and Slavonski Brod, were extracted and mapped at larger scales (1:70,000 and 1:80,000).

 

3.1.7. Visual Validation and Internal Peer Review

After layer integration and symbolization, the draft map was reviewed by cartog-raphy faculty and GIS specialists. Validation included positional checks via orthophoto overlays and semantic checks through consultations with pastoral offices. Additionally, the internal review ensured compliance with cartographic best practices and thematic consistency with earlier diocesan maps (e.g., Požega, Gospić-Senj).”

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review discusses the merits of the article titled "Religious Cartography as a Segment of Thematic Cartography: 2 A Case Study of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek." 

The article describes the creation of a map of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek, in Croatia. Contained within the article, there is a historical perspective presented about the formation of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek. The overall stated goal of this article is to present a well designed map of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek using modern GIS applications and methods.

Generally speaking, the article has merit. However, in its present form, the information that is being communicated is not as successful in communicating the process the authors undertook in creating this Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek map. When I read the title, I was expecting to read a more detailed discussion of the process that went into creating the map. Unfortunately, that discussion did not present itself. In fact, I did not learn much about the process as the authors tended to focus on topics not directly related to the challenges associated with creating the map. My review is organized according to the major and minor issues I had while reading through the article. 

Major Issues
- The authors reference 23 students who, we are lead to believe, played a role in the construction of the map. Yet, the reader is never introduced to these students, who they were, what specific role(s) they played in creating the map, or how they were selected. Moreover, the authors mentioned that the students faced substantial challenges but those challenges are never discussed. The only evidence the reader is presented with a student is in the figure caption for Figure 1. 

- The discussion of the other maps related to the thematic map of the Archdiocese of Đakovo-Osijek needs more context, especially with respect to the methodological principles (which haven't been defined exactly).

- The discussion of the datasets and data collection efforts is detailed, for most of the datasets. However, it isn't clear to the reader how the individual datasets in all cases are used to create the "new map." The reader wants to know, for each dataset, how was that data used to create the "new map" of the archdiocese. 

- The authors missed an opportunity to more thoroughly discuss the methodology (cartographic process?) used when designing the new map in more detail. Special attention toward the design of symbols, color choices, data classification/generalization, etc. was missing. My argument here is that there are likely other individuals who may have a similar cartographic needs. More clarity from the authors on the design process (methodology) is needed. 

- The article would be demonstratively improved if the discussion in Section 2.4.4. was expanded upon including more information about how the evidence from the 1826 map played a role in the decision as to which features should be shown on the "new map." For instance, how was the historical data incorporated into the "new map?" What kind of process did the authors go through to reconcile elements such as changes in boundaries, roads, streams, ecclesiastical features, etc.? It wasn't clear to me what specific role the information from the digitized 1826 map played in reconciling modern geography with the past. This discussion needs more attention. At present, the 1826 map seems like an unrelated entity whose function in the present project is not clearly defined. 

- The reader isn't clear on what exactly the final map is. In some context, Figure 1 seems to be the final map. However, discussion later in the article suggests that another map is the final map. Curiously, the reader never sees the map in Figure 1. Where is the final map? 

- The readability testing process mentioned in the article that the map when through needs more discussion. I am not entirely sure which map went through this process. What were the important findings of that testing? Were the results of that testing used to create another version of the map? 

Minor Issues
Abstract
The authors stated that the aim of the article was to provide a high-quality spatial representation of the archdiocese to support cultural, historical, and religious research. However, another aim should be to explain the methodology of the (cartographic?) process so that others with a similar aim can also map their religious research? There is more to this research that simply showing the reader a thematic map. Expand on the idea that the article is also focused on the methodology (whatever that methodology is, which needs to be better defined). 

Line 23, provide a citation that supports the following statement: "Religious cartography constitutes an important segment of thematic cartography, focusing on the visualization of the ecclesiastical organization of space and its historical, cultural, and social dimensions"

In the second paragraph on page 1, the reader would greatly benefit from a map that presents the geographic boundary of the archdioceses that is being discussed. Not all readers are familiar with the geography of this locality. The map shown in Figure 1 is too small for the reader to read the text. 

Line 51, the authors state "the results of which had been published over the past two decades in leading international journals." There needs to be a discussion and citations of these important published works. Such a discussion is necessary to provide an intellectual foundation for the current work. In other words, there needs to be some kind of literature review of published work to help place the current work into an intellectual context. Some of the ideas I expected to see in this discussion would be what cartographic approaches to past mapping efforts of similar kinds of data have been tried? Which approaches were successful and which weren't? How is the present approach improving on or incorporating what has been previously done. 

Line 52, the authors state "The project engaged approximately twenty students, who were working diligently several months to overcome substantial challenges due to the limited availability of source data and historical records." I was surprised to read this statement. It isn't clear to me what role the students have in this project (engaged in what manner?). Who are these students, where are they located, how were they selected, what were the substantial challenges, and so forth. Discussion of these students is not presented in the article. 

Line 58, the following sentence "Understanding geographic space whether on a national, regional, continental, or global scales achieved through an appropriate and comprehensible spatial representation" is incomplete.

Line 60, the authors state "These representations include not only the latest remote sensing products, but also numerous existing or newly created thematic cartographic products." and then continue with "Among them are also old maps, especially those with the same thematic focus as the area under current research." The two sentences do not link well together. The problem is the first sentence talks about recent and newly created products while the next sentence associates that old maps are included. The linkage between these two sentences is not clear.

I am struggling to follow the first paragraph discussion under section 2 Materials and Methods. The discussion is too ambiguous and doesn't seem to tie directly to the project at hand. 

Line 88, the authors reference a "thorough analysis was conducted on the Map of the of the Bosnian or Đakovo and Srijem Diocese from 1826." However, the authors do not elaborate on what that analysis entailed or for what purpose the results of the analysis was placed. 

Again, an overview map of the archdioceses boundary should appear in section 2.2.

Line 135. Much of the detailed discussion of the scanning process, RGB color model, screen pixel, number of colors, etc. isn't really needed. What would be a better use of the space is to show an image of the 1826 map, discuss the novel features included within the map, and what/how the evidence from that map was used to create the "new map."

Line 135, it is a bit odd to conflate the discussion of the scanning details of the 1826 map with the historical context of the study area. The discussion does not flow well. Especially odd is that Section 2.2.1 returns to a discussion of the historical context of the archdiocese's boundaries. The scanning discussion is too detailed and out of place with the historical discussion.  

Line 175. Not sure why Figure 1 is placed so far down in the article compared to when it was first referenced. At this point in the article, the reader isn't certain what Figure 1 represents. Is Figure 1 the "new map" or an existing map of the archdiocese? 

Line 182. The authors contrast 1826 and 2018. Yet, I thought the map was digitized in 2016? 

Line 184, the authors state "Both analog and digital cartographic representations can be used for this purpose. In geospatial communication, even topographic maps can serve a valuable role if thematic maps of the targeted content are not available ideally, however, thematic maps should be used. Maps of various scales, whether detailed or overview, are welcome, as they contribute to different ways of perceiving geographic space. Every creation of a new cartographic representation should be preceded by a purposeful analysis and selection of features, phenomena, and conditions relevant to the specific thematic content being represented on the map." Perhaps, but there needs to be citations to support these claims. Moreover, it isn't clear to this reader how the ideas presented in this statement reflect the present project. 

Line 193, the authors state "The text written on the old Map of the Bosnian or Đakovo and Srijem Diocese from 1826." As with my earlier comment, seeing an image of this map would be extremely helpful to the reader. An image of the map would help provide some spatial context for the information shown in Table 1.  

Line 228 and 229. I don't know what available field data and scientific and professional literature includes. 

Section 2.3.1 provides a discussion of the various datasets that were used for this project.  

Line 334, the authors state "The thematic content (religious objects) was filtered according to significance." Yet, I don't know what that significance means especially related to the present work. 

Section 2.4.3. needs more discussion. It isn't clear to me what the authors mean by the statement "Cartographic symbols were created according to thematic cartography standards." Which symbols and what are the standards?

Section 2.4.2. I struggled quite a bit in trying to understand which specific datasets that were previously discussed were included in the map compilation process.

Figure 1
- The map is too small. I can't see the details of what appears on the map.
- Provide some zoomed-in views of the map so the details are more visually identifiable.
- The authors mentioned on line 354 that the map in Figure 1 is the "final appearance of the map." But later in the article, reference is made to a new map being produced. I don't follow this discussion. Which map is the final map? If another map beyond what is shown in Figure 1 is created, then why not show that map too?
- Figure 1 also states "the first or student version of the map." However, I don't follow what the authors mean by the statement. Did only one student make the map? Who was this student? I thought there were 23 students who worked on the map? Were there more versions of the map? If so, what changed between the versions and why? This statement needs additional discussion.  

Lines 359 and 360. There is a large transition in ideas between these two paragraphs. Consider including a new section header as the two paragraphs are not linked together causing difficulties when understanding the information.

Line 373, The authors state that the "map's authors [Map of the Požega Diocese] always keep in mind the necessary positional and semantic accuracy according to the map scale. This statement doesn't fit within the overall discussion of the "new map." What is the "necessary positional and semantic accuracy" regarding the Map of the Požega Diocese? And how is that information conveyed to the reader by Figure 2?

Figure 2
- I do not follow how Figure 2 fits into this discussion. What is Figure 2 showing the reader exactly? This isn't clear.

Line 378. I am confused. I thought Figure 1 was the new map? What is the new map that is discussed in Section 2.4.4. exactly and how is it different from Figure 1?

Line 380, what role did ArcGIS and QGIS play in the project? Why were these two applications used? Explain their contribution to the overall effort. 

Section 3
Why not show the final map? The authors state, starting on line 44, that "The resulting map offers not only a detailed geographical overview of the organizational structure of the archdiocese but also contextualizes its historical development, emphasizing the role of rivers as natural borders and the significance of ecclesiastical and 46 urban centers such as Đakovo and Osijek." Yet, the reader never sees the map; thus, this contextualization is never realized. 

The discussion in Sections 4 and 5 are rather generalized and do not really add much to the overall article. 

Author Response

Heritage journal

For research article

 

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

Major Issues

1. Lack of methodological clarity in map creation

Response: A new subsection has been added (2.4.5–2.4.7) explaining in detail the design choices, generalization methods, symbology decisions, and the role of historical data in shaping the final map.

2. Role of students unclear

Response: A paragraph was added in Section 2.1 explaining the involvement, selection, and contributions of the 23 participating students, as well as the challenges they encountered.

3. Historical map’s role not explained

Response: Section 2.4.5 now clearly explains how data from the 1826 map was digitized, evaluated, and selectively integrated into the new map.

4. Ambiguity regarding “final map”

Response: The caption of Figure 1 was revised, and a new figure (Figure 3) with enlarged segments of the final map has been added. The full-resolution version is available as supplementary material.

5. Readability testing not discussed

Response: Section 2.4.7 describes the internal review process and concrete improvements implemented after feedback.

6. Methodology lacking transferability

Response: A revised abstract now emphasizes the methodological approach and its potential use in similar projects. A state-of-the-art subsection (1.1) has also been added.

Minor Issues

• Line 23: Citation added (Lovrić 1988)
• Line 51: References to previous diocesan map publications added.
• Line 52: Clarified the role of students and their workflow.
• Line 58–60: Sentences reworded for clarity and better logical flow.
• Line 88: Additional explanation of the analysis of the 1826 map added.
• Line 135: Technical details condensed and scanning information restructured.
• Line 334: Significance filtering of features now defined in 2.4.6.
• Line 373: Added explanation of semantic accuracy in cartographic context.
• Line 380: Explanation added regarding the complementary use of ArcGIS and QGIS.

We trust that these revisions address all concerns raised and significantly enhance the clarity, methodological rigor, and overall contribution of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is mostly revised according to my comments.

Author Response

The article is mostly revised according to my comments.

 

Authors: thank you very much for very useful review. Now the explanation of our work is much better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for sending the revised version and providing responses to each of the raised questions or notes. 

I do not have any further comment as I consider paper being grately improved. 

Author Response

I would like to thank the authors for sending the revised version and providing responses to each of the raised questions or notes. 

I do not have any further comment as I consider paper being grately improved.

 

Authors: thank you very much for very useful review. Now the explanation of our work is much better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed many concerns I had with their first version. I was glad to see their changes and feel that these changes have improved the article. There are a few places where additional changes are still needed. I list those changes that still need to be addressed below.

Line 44, the authors state that the "principal aim of this study was to..." but in line 46, the authors state something different as the "aims" of the study. Suggest re-wording. State that the study's goal is to develop the thematic map of the Archdiocese while one of the study's objectives was to investigate the spatial organization...A second study objective was to "present the production..."

I still argue that the discussion of the Archdiocese's boundaries would be more spatially grounded to the reader if a simple locator map was included. Not all readers will have a good mental map of the area discussed by the authors.

Line 66, if the authors are going to mention that previous work has been published in leading international journals, then they need to provide citations to that effect. Otherwise, that mention doesn't have any validity behind it.

Line 69, I don't know what the "selected through coursework participation at the Chair of Cartography" means. What is "at the Chair of Cartography?"

Line 116. There is more than the "latest remote sensing products" that went into this study, correct? I'm not sure why their is an emphasis on remote sensing.

Line 210. While the inclusion of Figure 2 is interesting, there needs to be more discussion about the contents of the figure. I don't know what the symbols and colors represent or how they relate to the 1826 map (or even if they do relate to that map). Where are the boundary shifts, which religious centers are preserved, and what are the boundary changes that are mentioned in the caption?

Line 251. The discussion that the map was scanned has already been stated. Not sure the redundancy is needed here. 

I am still not clear if Figure 3 is the new map, if this is an existing map, or the role that this map played in the overall production of a "new map." 

Line 396. Scientific literature does not constitute as data in the strictness of sense. Moreover, this "data" can't be projected into HTRS96/TM. I suggest removing item 9 and moving it to another location (such as the literature review).

Table 3. No need to underline all of the text in the table. 

Figure 4 caption is confusing. Why not state "the first version of the map created by the students..." Was there only one student that created the map?

Line 592. I'm still confused about the "new" map and how does Figure 4 fit into the map production methodology? 

Figure 6. The table is difficult to read. I'm not sure the value in showing the attribute table as a screen short from the GIS software. To me, the map is more relevant to the article. If the attribute table is more important, then provide additional discussion explaining what specific information about the attribute table is useful. 

The Results section reads like an itemized version of the methodology. For instance, I do not following the association between the bullet listing of phases that is shown under the Results section as a result. It reads more like a workflow to me. In addition, much of what I read in this section seems repetitive from discussions above. The Results section should be more inclusive of showing the final map (or at least a portion of it) with discussion about the improvements or benefits that the methodology produced. 

Line 667. The authors state that the "final optimized version is included in the Supplementary Materials." Yet, when I clicked on the link under the Supplementary Materials header on line 913, there was no map, only an article. The reader should be able to see the final map.

With Figure 5's content, are the authors trying to assert that one symbol design is better than another? I'm not clear on the reasons why Figure 5 is included.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s 4 Comments

 

We thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity, completeness, and scientific rigor of our manuscript. Below are our detailed responses:

 

Line 44–46 – Aim wording conflict: Revised to clearly distinguish the overall goal and specific objectives as suggested.

 

Locator map: Added a locator map showing the Archdiocese within Croatia to provide spatial context.

 

Line 66 – Citation: Added citations to Journal of Maps and Tehnički vjesnik to support the statement about leading international journals.

 

Line 69 – Clarification: Rephrased to clarify “Chair of Cartography” as an academic department.

 

Line 116 – Remote sensing emphasis: Expanded to include all major data types used in the study.

 

Line 210 – Figure 2 explanation: Expanded description and caption to explain colors, symbols, and their relation to the 1826 map, explicitly indicating preserved centers and boundary changes.

 

Line 251 – Redundancy: Removed repeated mention of scanning process.

 

Figure 3 role: Clarified in text that Figure 3 shows current boundaries for comparison with historical extents.

 

Line 396 – “Scientific literature” as data: Removed from dataset list; moved relevant references to Literature Review.

 

Table 3 – Formatting: Removed underlining from all text.

 

Figure 4 caption: Changed to “The first version of the map created by students…” for clarity.

 

Line 592 – Clarification: Added text explaining that Figure 4 is the student-produced version used as the basis for the final map.

 

Figure 6 readability: We had to correct according to other 3 reviewers and their suggestions so we would like to remain Figure 6 as is, otherwise they will correct it in again and authors will be in a loop. Only attribute table was needed to be shown, not specific information within table.

 

Results section: Revised to reduce methodological repetition and emphasize final map results, improvements, and benefits. If we correct anything else, it would be in collision with other reviewers and their suggestions.

 

Line 667 – Missing final map: Ensured that the final optimized map is now included in the Supplementary Materials. Link in supplementary materials (final pdf) is checked and working: https://mega.nz/file/xUYAAR7Z#-riAUGdIeTQl6wFtphdx3_wZve4_P2mWT3l358Z-ISk

 

Figure 5 purpose: One of the reviewers in the first round of reviews gave the advice to show the map legend separately in the picture, and that's why there is Figure 5.

 

Thank you for all suggestions, we believe these revisions address all remaining concerns and have improved both the scientific quality and readability of the manuscript. The English text has been proofread and corrected in many places.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx