EventGeoScout: Fostering Citizen Empowerment and Augmenting Data Quality through Collaborative Geographic Information Governance and Optimization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

I found this article about the EventGeoScout framework very interesting. 

I have a few technical comments:

- what is meant by a "visual map" on r. 72? A real map with all components or a visualization of geometry?

- OSM is not only based on GNSS data nowadays (r. 172-179). It integrates other open datasets as well, which are very important data sources.

- Figures sets 8., 9., 10., and 11. are very small to even recognize what the difference is in each set. It would be better to include larger versions, especially when they should illustrate descriptions of experiment results. 

- The abbreviation "UFLP" is first used in the main text without explanation (r. 101), then used with explanation later (r. 305).

- Typo in years of Malága marathon events, r. 448, is "2002", but from context should be "2022".

And several formatting comments:

- missing spaces after dots, commas - very often in Section 5.

- r. 469 - double dots

- r. 479, 492 - missing space after sentence end

- title of Figure 6, r. 596-597 - missing spaces after comma

- References - some names of articles should contain capital letters

- e.g. Ref 12: ... information? a comparative study..., Ref 22: ... From the internet of things..., Ref 28: ... with men in toronto, canada, january 2017...

 

 

Author Response

As suggested by the Editor, we have prepared a new version of the paper, introducing changes with respect to the previous version to incorporate all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. The following is our explanation of the changes made, as well as how they address the issues raised by the reviewers.

In this new version of the paper we have taken into account all of the re- viewers’ comments. We have highlighted in the paper (text in colour red) the major changes done to identify them easily. We have also revised the complete paper and have fixed all the typos and corrections needed.

Reviewer 1

Dear Authors, I found this article about the EventGeoScout framework very interesting. I have a few technical comments:

Q1. what is meant by a “visual map” on r. 72? A real map with all components or a visualization of geometry?

Thanks for your valuable comments. We will respond to each of the com- ments suggested by the reviewer and once again we thank him for his efforts, which have undoubtedly contributed to a significant improvement in our work. Regarding the concept “visual map” which referred to visualization of geometry but could indeed be confusing, it has been left as “map” to avoid any possible misinterpretation.

Q2. OSM is not only based on GNSS data nowadays (r. 172-179). It integrates other open datasets as well, which are very important data sources.

It is true that OpenStreetMap (OSM) has evolved significantly in terms of data sources since its inception. Currently, OSM does not rely exclusively on GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems) data for its geographic informa- tion. Instead, it has integrated diverse open datasets, enhancing the quality and variety of available information.

These additional data sources include open datasets from various origins, such as government information, remote sensing data, publicly accessible satel- lite imagery, and contributions from the user community. This diversification not only improves the accuracy of mapping but also allows for a more compre- hensive and up-to-date representation of the geographic environment in OSM.

The integration of different datasets reflects OSM’s commitment to accessi- bility and the quality of geographic information, leveraging community collab- oration and the availability of open data to build a more robust and versatile global map.

The section has been modified taking into account the reviewers’ comments.

Q3. Figures sets 8., 9., 10., and 11. are very small to even recog- nize what the difference is in each set. It would be better to include larger versions, especially when they should illustrate descriptions of experiment results.

With regard to the size of figures 8, 9, 10 and 11, they were indeed too small and the differences could not be appreciated. We have reduced from three figures to two figures per line to make them visible.

Q4. The abbreviation ”UFLP” is first used in the main text without explanation (r. 101), then used with explanation later (r. 305).

The abbreviation ”UFLP” is used throughout the text and although it was described in the abstract it is certainly not in the first appearance of the intro- duction. It has been changed and again we welcome the comment.

Q5. Typo in years of Mal ́aga marathon events, r. 448, is ”2002”, but from context should be ”2022”. And several formatting comments:

a. missing spaces after dots, commas - very often in Section 5. b. r. 469 - double dots
c. r. 479, 492 - missing space after sentence end
d. title of Figure 6, r. 596-597 - missing spaces after comma

e. References - some names of articles should contain capital letters f. e.g. Ref 12: ... information? a comparative study..., Ref 22: ... From the internet of things..., Ref 28: ... with men in toronto, canada, january 2017...

All typos and format comments were addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have read with interest your research work, which seems to me absolutely valid and worthy of publication.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out to you some aspects of the manuscript that I think need to be corrected before publication.

 

Regarding the writing style of the paper, it in numerous passages, seems more akin to a promotional campaign than a formal presentation of a research product. Enthusiastic expressions and sensationalistic announcements are reported thickly throughout the text and leave the reader somewhat interjected. Rather, the reader should be enabled to evaluate the innovative content of the framework by making comparisons with pre-existing platforms, frameworks, software, standards, but this is not fully possible because the "related works" section does not report enough of them (currently only INSPIRE, OSM, Sahana, Wikimapia are mentioned).

Therefore, I suggest increasing the content of section 2 "related works" by including more literature references, but especially more examples of collaborative platforms, systems for consulting and integrating open geo-data, tools for creating and sharing VGIs, Virtual Research Environments with data and process sharing capabilities, but also standards and initiatives to foster interoperability of geo-data and their quality management (for example, there is also no mention of OGC standards or the immense literature and the active working groups on VGI quality).

In section 2 again, I would instead drastically trim the statements about EventGeoScout's capabilities, which are often redundant (e.g., lines 166-170) or not centered on the subject of the section (e.g., lines 213-237).

 

A second problem is in the balance of the paper's content. If a description of the entire framework - dedicated to collaborative geo-data management - is announced in the abstract and section 1, then this is resolved into a very brief description of the components in section 3 (2 pages long). In contrast, as many as 11 pages are devoted to geoprocessing and in particular to testing the algorithm on a UFLP.

This makes the content of the paper completely unbalanced from its announced purpose, and the system's functionalities are not at all clear to the reader, except in its handling of the UFLP. How do users find and access information layers? What formats and standards are managed by the framework (vector, raster, Tabular data? WMS, WFS, WCS, SOS, CSW?) How can users upload or generate new information or modify shared layers? What types of spatial analysis are handled? How is data validation done? Etc

Also in the concluding section 6, you again talk about neogeography and the framework's contribution in the management of geographic information from diverse sources, although these aspects were not really clarified (by the way the concepts of neogeography, VGI, crowdmapping, UGC, geographic CS, etc. were never explored in the paper).

I suggest one of these two alternative approaches as a solution:

- To rebalance the contents of the paper, expanding section 3 and reducing sections 4 and 5.

- To modify the parts that define the paper's objective and its contents, shifting the focus to geoprocessing aspects and performances.

 

Finally, it would be important for you to include in the concluding section information about the current usability of the system: is it accessible and operational or still under development? If it is accessible, where? If it is not, when will it be released?

I hope these suggestions are helpful in improving the comprehensibility of the paper.

Author Response

As suggested by the Editor, we have prepared a new version of the paper, introducing changes with respect to the previous version to incorporate all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. The following is our explanation of the changes made, as well as how they address the issues raised by the reviewers.

In this new version of the paper we have taken into account all of the re- viewers’ comments. We have highlighted in the paper (text in colour red) the major changes done to identify them easily. We have also revised the complete paper and have fixed all the typos and corrections needed.

Reviewer 2

Dear authors, I have read with interest your research work, which seems to me absolutely valid and worthy of publication.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out to you some aspects of the manuscript that I think need to be corrected before publication.

Q6. Regarding the writing style of the paper, it in numerous pas- sages, seems more akin to a promotional campaign than a formal presentation of a research product. Enthusiastic expressions and sen- sationalistic announcements are reported thickly throughout the text and leave the reader somewhat interjected.

We appreciate the encouraging comments. We will address each of the com- ments suggested by the reviewer and once again thank him for his efforts, which have undoubtedly contributed to a significant improvement in our work. Re- garding the writing style of the paper, we agree that in certain parts of the paper it was far from a formal presentation. The enthusiastic expressions and sensationalistic announcements have been eliminated in favor of a more research- oriented style. In the new version of the manuscript, the entire article has been revised, refining this and other aspects of style, and we believe that a much improved version of the article has been achieved.

Q7. Rather, the reader should be enabled to evaluate the innovative content of the framework by making comparisons with pre-existing platforms, frameworks, software, standards, but this is not fully pos- sible because the ”related works” section does not report enough of them (currently only INSPIRE, OSM, Sahana, Wikimapia are men- tioned).Therefore, I suggest increasing the content of section 2 ”re- lated works” by including more literature references, but especially more examples of collaborative platforms, systems for consulting and integrating open geo-data, tools for creating and sharing VGIs, Vir- tual Research Environments with data and process sharing capabil- ities, but also standards and initiatives to foster interoperability of geo-data and their quality management (for example, there is also no mention of OGC standards or the immense literature and the active working groups on VGI quality). In section 2 again, I would instead drastically trim the statements about EventGeoScout’s capabilities, which are often redundant (e.g., lines 166-170) or not centered on the subject of the section (e.g., lines 213-237)

Again, we appreciate this comment, as you can see the related Works section has been completely rewritten to include related works that were excluded in the previous version beyond INSPIRE, OSM, Sahana and Wikimapia. It provides a wider range of more relevant references with more examples of collaborative platforms, systems for consulting and integrating open geo-data, tools for cre- ating and sharing VGIs, Virtual Research Environments. Standards and initia- tives dedicated to the interoperability of geo-data and their quality management have also been included and trimming redundant parts about EventGeoScout’s capabilities.

Q8. A second problem is in the balance of the paper’s content. If a description of the entire framework - dedicated to collaborative geo- data management - is announced in the abstract and section 1, then this is resolved into a very brief description of the components in section 3 (2 pages long). In contrast, as many as 11 pages are de- voted to geoprocessing and in particular to testing the algorithm on a UFLP. This makes the content of the paper completely unbalanced from its announced purpose, and the system’s functionalities are not at all clear to the reader, except in its handling of the UFLP. How do users find and access information layers? What formats and stan- dards are managed by the framework (vector, raster, Tabular data? WMS, WFS, WCS, SOS, CSW?) How can users upload or generate new information or modify shared layers? What types of spatial anal- ysis are handled? How is data validation done? Etc

We fully agree with this comment, as the article is indeed unbalanced in terms of devotion to each of the sections. As the reviewer can see in the latest version of the paper, this has been corrected to achieve a more balanced arti- cle. We are grateful for this valuable advice, which undoubtedly contributed significantly to an improved version of the article.

 

Q9. Also in the concluding section 6, you again talk about neo- geography and the framework’s contribution in the management of geographic information from diverse sources, although these aspects were not really clarified (by the way the concepts of neogeography, VGI, crowdmapping, UGC, geographic CS, etc. were never explored in the paper).

Section 6 has been completely rewritten and those concepts that are really important throughout the article have been kept and those that did not provide information necessary for the understanding of our contribution have been omit- ted. Those concepts that are used have been adequately described as reflected in the paper.

Q10. I suggest one of these two alternative approaches as a solution: - To rebalance the contents of the paper, expanding section 3 and reducing sections 4 and 5.

Again, we are grateful for this valuable comment. The content of the pa- per has been rebalanced by expanding section 3 and reducing sections 4 and 5 in certain irrelevant aspects.

Q11. To modify the parts that define the paper’s objective and its contents, shifting the focus to geoprocessing aspects and perfor- mances.

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your insights. We have made the necessary modifications to redefine the paper’s objective and focus on geopro- cessing aspects and performances as suggested. We have already implemented the suggested changes in the abstract and introduction.

Q12. Finally, it would be important for you to include in the conclud- ing section information about the current usability of the system: is it accessible and operational or still under development? If it is ac- cessible, where? If it is not, when will it be released?

All project code and scripts used for the use case analysis are available on the public github repository https://github.com/montenegro-montes/ EventGeoScout. The information has been added in several places throughout the paper. In addition, due to space limitations on the article in the repository, it is possible to find more images of different situations throughout the race.

Q13. I hope these suggestions are helpful in improving the compre- hensibility of the paper.

 

We believe that the comments have been very helpful and have undoubtedly contributed to a significant improvement of the paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a geoinformation management framework named EventGeoScout in this paper to improve geographic data integration and quality enhancement. From my point of view, this paper is not well organized and written. The depth and specificity of their work should be enhanced. For example, the expected technical details on seamless data integration, data quality enhancement, collaborative management, and so on, are lack or unclear to fully evaluate them. And more than half of the content is focus on the use case (UFLP, genetic algorithm, and one specific scenario).

1.      In the introduction part, consider providing a clear overview of the topic and objectives only. Several paragraphs are disconnected from the main topic;

2.      Line 87, “our proposed genetic algorithm” needs to be corrected;

3.      Figure 1, the system framework is too general for readers to learn each component and its functionalities, more comprehensive explanations are expected;

4.      The main points like seamless data integration, data quality enhancement, collaborative management are not explicitly stated for readers to understand the proposed framework thoroughly, and each component should be adequately supported with specific descriptions;

5.      The formula 5 is the simplest form of UFLP, coordinate values of the points. How are the cost functions constructed in consideration of roads between locations or other factors?

6.      Section 4 and 5 introduce more unnecessary details. Consider delete any extraneous information;

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.      Define abbreviations (like GIS, UFLP) at first mention, then use the short form thereafter; 

2.      Line 96 – 109, section titles are not needed in the structure description;

3.      Avoid use words like innovative and pioneering unless they are contextually appropriate;

Author Response

As suggested by the Editor, we have prepared a new version of the paper, introducing changes with respect to the previous version to incorporate all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. The following is our explanation of the changes made, as well as how they address the issues raised by the reviewers.

In this new version of the paper we have taken into account all of the re- viewers’ comments. We have highlighted in the paper (text in colour red) the major changes done to identify them easily. We have also revised the complete paper and have fixed all the typos and corrections needed.

Reviewer 3

Q14. The authors present a geoinformation management framework named EventGeoScout in this paper to improve geographic data inte- gration and quality enhancement. From my point of view, this paper is not well organized and written. The depth and specificity of their work should be enhanced.

We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments, which undoubtedly contributed to an improved version of the manuscript. The organization and writing of the paper have been largely modified, as can be seen in the final version. We believe that the new organization is more appropriate and balanced.

Q16. For example, the expected technical details on seamless data in- tegration, data quality enhancement, collaborative management, and so on, are lack or unclear to fully evaluate them. And more than half of the content is focus on the use case (UFLP, genetic algorithm, and one specific scenario). 1. In the introduction part, consider providing a clear overview of the topic and objectives only. Several paragraphs are disconnected from the main topic;

Thank you for your detailed feedback. We appreciate your insights. To ad- dress your concerns, we will enhance the technical details on seamless data integration, data quality enhancement, and collaborative management in the relevant sections. Additionally, we will revise the introduction to provide a clearer overview of the topic and objectives, and to ensure better coherence with the main topic. We acknowledge the need to balance the focus between use cases and technical details, and we have made the necessary adjustments accordingly. Your feedback is invaluable, and we are committed to improving these aspects for a more comprehensive and coherent paper.

Q17. 2. Line 87, “our proposed genetic algorithm” needs to be cor- rected;

Typos have been corrected throughout the paper.

Q18. 3. Figure 1, the system framework is too general for readers to learn each component and its functionalities, more comprehensive explanations are expected;

We agree with this comment and have included a more detailed description of each of the components and their functionalities to put the reader in the focus of the problem.

Q19. The main points like seamless data integration, data quality enhancement, collaborative management are not explicitly stated for readers to understand the proposed framework thoroughly, and each component should be adequately supported with specific descriptions;

More detailed descriptions of data integration, data quality enhancement and collaborative management have been included in order to facilitate the reader’s understanding of the proposed framework.

Q20. 4. The formula 5 is the simplest form of UFLP, coordinate values of the points. How are the cost functions constructed in con- sideration of roads between locations or other factors?

Fixed costs can be set in two ways, either randomly or manually entered by the user. In case they are calculated randomly, they will be assigned a value between 0 and 1000 units. An automatic calculation of the fixed costs makes the application of the algorithm easier, although the application can be edited by the user to include any target values. The costs of transport, however, are automatically calculated using the latitude and longitude for each client and facility, using the Haversine formula, which evaluates the difference between the latitude and longitude of two points. Indeed, formula 5 is a simplification of UFLP, the cost is the difference in distances (roads are not taken into account), this has been further emphasised to clarify the reader’s understanding of the input.

Q21. Section 4 and 5 introduce more unnecessary details. Consider delete any extraneous information;

Sections 4 and 5 have been rewritten avoiding less necessary details and pro- viding a more refined version.

Q22. Comments on the Quality of English Language 1. Define abbre- viations (like GIS, UFLP) at first mention, then use the short form thereafter;

Abbreviations have been defined at first mention.

Q23. 2. Line 96 – 109, section titles are not needed in the structure description;

Titles are avoided since they are not needed in the structure description.

Q24. 3. Avoid use words like innovative and pioneering unless they are contextually appropriate;

A complete revision of the wording of the manuscript has been carried out, with special emphasis on avoiding sensationalist words that are far removed from a scientific work such as the one presented.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf