Collaboration Mechanics with AR/VR for Cadastral Surveys—A Conceptual Implementation for an Urban Ward in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper shows a new way of using AR/VR technology for cadastral surveys in Indonesia. The authors explain three main cases: first titling, land subdivision, and improving data quality. The Geoclarity tools they made show how surveyors, landowners, and officials can work together from different places at the same time. The paper is interesting and gives a modern idea for better land registration.

I have some questions that should be considered.

The study is useful and practical, but it is mostly qualitative and does not give strong numbers or accuracy tests. How will the authors measure the accuracy of AR/VR surveys compared to normal surveys?

The paper also mentions problems like weak internet, high costs, and missing regulations, but more detail would help. Can the system work without internet or with weak internet connections?

What are the costs and how easy is it to use these tools in poor or rural areas? 

Should laws change in order to make this procedure official?

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments, questions and suggestions.
I am attaching our response to Reviewer 1's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General

1. An interesting comprehensive paper and detailed research approach to a real world problem using real world actors.
2. For readers not familiar with the recent drive to increase parcels in Indonesia’s land registration system, a section is needed in the Introduction summarising this information plus references. This is needed as background to understand the gaps that have emerged that this research tries to find solutions for.

Specific

1. Para-surveyors are mentioned in the Introduction as being an important part of why this research was undertaken. It is unclear in the description who are the para-surveyors, including in the Figures in Materials and Methods. Mention is made of land surveyors and senior surveyors and surveyors but not para-surveyors after the Introduction. The technical level of the para-surveyors needs to be explained and the term clearly used throughout the manuscript, particularly in section 3. For e.g. Lines 469-473 lists actors in the scenarios but does not mention para-surveyors, which is the para-surveyor? Line 560 test was carried out by land surveyors. If land surveyors were used how can it be assessed as to whether para-surveyors can also use the entire method?
2. Line 308 – what is a flying certificate?
3. Regarding Critical questions asked of the focus group lines- 391-396. Were there any capacity issues experienced in terms of use and understanding of the new equipment and process? At any point in the research was the equipment used with para-surveyors? And was it ascertained as to whether the technology would be problematic to landowners? Was it assessed as to whether the entire approach is capable of being replicated at the local level?
4. Line 557 ?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. The English is uneven across the manuscript with some paragraphs needing improvement.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments, questions and suggestions.
I am attaching our response to Reviewer 2's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores the application of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies in cadastral surveying in Indonesia, particularly focusing on how these technologies can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of land management-related workflows. The research mainly concentrates on three workflows: initial registration, data maintenance for land division, and quality improvement. The article hypothesizes that AR/VR technologies can support synchronous work among different locations and participants, thereby significantly increasing the speed and quality of the workflow outcomes. The use of new technologies to solve traditional cadastral problems is highly commendable, the experimental section of the article also presents very valuable real-life case studies.

Several revision suggestions are as follows:

1. The author needs to review the citations in the article, such as from line 133 to line 140. There are two different citation styles used here, and I couldn't find the citation for reference 22 in the text.
2. The word "twofold" in line 358 is incorrect. It is recommended to be changed to "two different".
3. The content of lines 491 to 494 appears to be a news report. Are there any relevant citation pages? When using others' evaluations, there should be corresponding supporting materials.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments, questions and suggestions.
I am attaching our response to Reviewer 3's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a topic of interest that is currently relevant in cadastral works. The analysis is coherent and logical.

In table 1 SPST case is missing, it should be included, i.e. mentioning that it is not a case considered in the analysis focused on AR/VR. 

Even if the case study is focused on Indonesia, it is also important to include the current situation in other countries, not just Indonesia.

The case study is smooth and well developed, however there are a few typos, such as Geo-Clarity and Geoclarity, etc. These errors need to be fixed.

It is also necessary to analyze the accuracy provided by the proposed workflow and how topological errors in the system are resolved, as well as the accepted tolerance.

It is not clear the source for the buildings with level of detail 3 (LOD3). 

The Conclusions section must be improved highlighting the advantages and main findings.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments, questions and suggestions.
I am attaching our response to Reviewer 4's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a very interesting approach and technology to improve the efficiency of cadastral management, which can be very useful to make these processes more agile.

However, I miss more information and explanations about a crucial step in the proposed method, related to how a cadastral map can be drawn in a collaborative way using VR. In addition, the presentation and validation of results is lacking.

Specific comments

- Figures 2 and 3 show exactly the same figure/scheme for the proposed procedure (the stage at which AR is used), with the only difference being the addition of “neighbours” in Figure 3. Perhaps they could be summarised in only one.

- Lines 305-307. I guess that creating a cadastral map in a collaborative way and using VR, without any draft or base map, can be a very difficult and complex task. However, this process, which is the core of the methodology proposed in this paper, is described in only three lines (305-307). In order to replicate this study, it would be very useful to describe the procedure used for this task, including the steps, role of each participant, order of participation, methods to solve conflicts, etc. In addition, an example and image of a cadastral map created in this way would be very interesting.

- First paragraph of section 4.1.1. should be in the introduction. However, the functionalities of the AR app could be described in more detail, with some example of their application to a parcel survey.

- Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. What happens after each user explores the area (taken measurements and queried information). What is the subsequent process? How are the parcels drawn? I can easily understand how VR is used to explore and query the cadastral maps, but I cannot find the explanation of how a cadastral map can be drawn in a collaborative way using this technology.

- Tables 5-7. The columns labelled “step” include a description of the procedure, not a validation method or test. Regarding the answers to the questions, did all of the interviewed users respond in the same way?

- The validation section should include some description or example of the results obtained. It could also provide some examples of problems that can be solved using this technology.

- Discussion. The second and third paragraphs of the Discussion section describe the opinions or comments or results of interviews with users, but the paper does not explain how these opinions were obtained. The fourth paragraph includes an analysis of precision issues that is not based on previous results.

- Line 548. In order to verify the time reduction, an example could be provided, in which the time required to obtain the cadastral survey using the proposed technology and the traditional approach could be compared.

- Line 557. This sentence states that the study tested three land administration processes, however no results for these three processes are presented.

Editing errors.

Line 33 “surveyors surveyors”

Line 97

Line 123. “Types”

Line 138. Format of references

Line 317. Called /named

Line 557.

Line 579. ¿inefficiency?

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments, questions and suggestions.
I am attaching our response to Reviewer 5's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The requested improvements have been made in the review

Author Response

Please see the file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf