Multiscale 3D Documentation of the Medieval Wall of Jaén (Spain) Based on Multi-Sensor Data Fusion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article in line with the journal, well-written, well-structured and with references.

The work itself supports and consolidates previous experiences of other works and researchers.

The contribution of the flight plan taking into account the constant height to the slope of the terrain is important to obtain good results in SfM.

The joining of meshes or point clouds from different techniques also gives good results.

Georeferencing is fundamental, either with GNSS or total stations, the important thing of this article is to make known the existence of works and the techniques used on a daily basis.

I attach particular comments that may improve and/or clarify the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors:

Thank you for your suggestions and comments. We have rewritten the paper following your suggestions:

• We have explained the aircraft selection in SL2.
• We have corrected the mistake related to the term “MDT”.
• We have described the presence of other more recent paths that are visible in the DTM.
• We have not included images of the aircrafts because they are easily found on the Internet and we do not want to extend the document.

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a detailed case study on the multiscale 3D documentation of the medieval wall of Jaén, Spain, through the integration of LiDAR and photogrammetry. The goal is to generate accurate 3D models, orthoimages, and DEMs to aid in the restoration and preservation of the wall. Τhe paper presents a commendable effort in documenting a historic monument using advanced geomatic techniques and data fusion. The methodology is well-executed, and the results are substantial. However, there are some areas that could be improved and refined to enhance the paper’s clarity, organization, and overall readability, thereby broadening its impact.

·        The paper showcases effective implementation rather than introduce novel research findings. It would be beneficial to emphasize the unique aspects of the study, particularly in comparison to existing literature. Additionally, provide a clear comparison with previous studies on similar subjects to underscore what sets this case study apart. Update references with more recent research to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of relevant studies in the field.

·        In the Materials and Methods section it would be useful to provide more detail about the data preprocessing steps, alignment procedures, and any potential challenges faced during the integration of data from different sensors.

·        The Results and Discussion section is dense and could be organized into subsections for clarity. Dividing this section into subheadings corresponding to the different scale levels (SL1, SL2, SL3) and their outcomes would improve the paper's structure and navigation. Emphasize the strengths and limitations of the methodology and how it compares to other approaches.

·        The conclusion could be expanded to discuss the broader implications of the findings for the field of heritage preservation and the potential for the methodology to be applied to other historical sites.

     While the paper is informative, certain sections would benefit from improved clarity and conciseness. For instance, some sentences, especially in the introduction and methodology sections, are quite lengthy and could be restructured for easier comprehension. Consider breaking them down into shorter sentences to improve readability and understanding. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid excessive use of passive voice, as it can make sentences more complex. Use active voice for clarity.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a detailed case study on the multiscale 3D documentation of the medieval wall of Jaén, Spain, through the integration of LiDAR and photogrammetry. The goal is to generate accurate 3D models, orthoimages, and DEMs to aid in the restoration and preservation of the wall. Τhe paper presents a commendable effort in documenting a historic monument using advanced geomatic techniques and data fusion. The methodology is well-executed, and the results are substantial. However, there are some areas that could be improved and refined to enhance the paper’s clarity, organization, and overall readability, thereby broadening its impact.

Reviewer: The paper showcases effective implementation rather than introduce novel research findings. It would be beneficial to emphasize the unique aspects of the study, particularly in comparison to existing literature. Additionally, provide a clear comparison with previous studies on similar subjects to underscore what sets this case study apart. Update references with more recent research to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of relevant studies in the field.

Authors: Done. We have included a new paragraph explaining these aspects. Thank you.

Reviewer: In the Materials and Methods section it would be useful to provide more detail about the data preprocessing steps, alignment procedures, and any potential challenges faced during the integration of data from different sensors.

Authors: We have improved this section including some aspects of data preprocessing. The alignment procedures are explained in the text. We used cloud-to-cloud algorithms to register point clouds. Thank you.

Reviewer: The Results and Discussion section is dense and could be organized into subsections for clarity. Dividing this section into subheadings corresponding to the different scale levels (SL1, SL2, SL3) and their outcomes would improve the paper's structure and navigation. Emphasize the strengths and limitations of the methodology and how it compares to other approaches.

Authors: In our opinion, this section is too short to be divided into subsections. This is the reason of integrating both sections Results and Discussion into only one. Our aim was to show some basic examples of the results (first paragraph and Figure 6) in other to facilitate the readability of the manuscript, and discus some relevant aspects of these results, such as the best behaviour of TLS point cloud with respect to the photogrammetric one in some zones of the wall. The inclusion of more detailed explanations of the results could confuses readers. Thank you for your suggestion.

Reviewer: The conclusion could be expanded to discuss the broader implications of the findings for the field of heritage preservation and the potential for the methodology to be applied to other historical sites.

Authors: Done. We have included a new paragraph explaining these aspects. Thank you for your suggestion.

Reviewer:  While the paper is informative, certain sections would benefit from improved clarity and conciseness. For instance, some sentences, especially in the introduction and methodology sections, are quite lengthy and could be restructured for easier comprehension. Consider breaking them down into shorter sentences to improve readability and understanding. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid excessive use of passive voice, as it can make sentences more complex. Use active voice for clarity.

Authors: We have improved the manuscript following your suggestions. Thank you.