Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 3, 2023
Decision Letter - Ayesha Maqbool, Editor

PONE-D-23-16713Geometric-Based Approach for Linking Various Building Measurement Data to a 3D City ModelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ogawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please revise the article as per reviewer's comments specially related to methodology and research context, also during revision refer to relevant references only.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ayesha Maqbool, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that Figures 7,10 and 11 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,5,6,8 and 9 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. We note that Figures 1,2,5,6,8 and 9 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,5,6,8 and 9 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper is intended to combine different types of data to develop a 3D city model. In today's cities, the concept of smart cities is clearly in need of multi-layer digital models of urban areas, and contributions like this one are always welcome.

Being aware of the limitations of their work, the authors achieved a high matching rate, which reveals the suitability of their method.

However, there are a few changes to be made to improve the quality of the paper:

- Abstract (and throughout the paper)

Please specify that the Ministry is from Japan.

The source of the point cloud data (aerial surveying or vehicle-mounted LiDAR) should be indicated the first time they are mentioned.

What do the Authors mean by "a private map"? In this field, one expects to see government or institutional maps.

- Introduction

Please expand the research context at the beginning of this section. After that, the PLATEAU project and this paper's focus can be addressed.

Acronyms should be fully written the first time they appear in the paper. E.g., MMS

- Methodology

Given that a web API was developed, it is necessary to show some code, maybe in the form of simplified scripts, of the processes computed.

- Related work

At the end of this section, in view of previous research on the topic, the research gap should be synthesised, and the need of this paper justified.

- Conclusions

This section should not literally replicate the results data but constitute a synthesis of the research outcomes and their implications.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

I have read carefully your manuscript entitled "Geometric-Based Approach for Linking Various Building Measurement Data to a 3D City Model". I consider this paper could be accepted for publication as the results are promising. Nevertheless, before its final acceptance, some issues should be undertaken.

My main concern is on references and their format:

-The citation referring to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is not consistently written in the text (a word is missing twice).

-There are two references written in capital letters.

-Finally, in my view, authors should include some recent references on the projective transformation usage when dealing with point clouds or walls (or façades). Please, consider including https://doi.org/10.3390/s23156924 and https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13020335

Kind regards and congratulations on your research.

Reviewer #3: Summary

The study presents a Web API application for matching 2D polygons representing building footprints from different sources and a 3D point cloud with the 3D building models to create wall textures. The tests are carried out for the open 3D city model known as PLATEAU.

Overall comments

In my opinion, this paper can’t be published due to low presentation and the lack of novelty. I recommend that this paper be rejected. The paper is written like a general description, no scientific detail about the applied methods being presented.

In the abstract the authors mentioned different building measurement data from different sources, but throughout the paper only buildings footprints represented as polygons, 3D point clouds and buildings 3D models are mentioned. By the word “measurement”, the reader may be thinking about building height or other numeric information related to the building obtained by using different measurement instruments. Moreover, by “3D point clouds matching”, the reader can understand that two different point clouds has to be matched, as by “2D footprint matching”, two polygons are matched, but here, a 3D point cloud is matched with a building 3D model.

The method that projects the 3D point clouds on buildings facades to create textured walls, was published before. Please see:

Oniga, E.: A NEW APPROACH FOR THE SEMI-AUTOMATIC TEXTURE GENERATION OF THE BUILDINGS FACADES, FROM TERRESTRIAL LASER SCANNER DATA, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XXXIX-B6, 161–166, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXIX-B6-161-2012, 2012.

Specific comments

1. “aerial laser point cloud” should be reformulate as “Airborne Laser Scanner (ALS) point cloud”.

2. Figure 1 is of poor quality.

3. Figure 3 (a2), a scale bar should be added as the threshold for the polygons centroids matching is 10 m.

4. “aero images” reformulate to “aerial images”.

5. “aircraft data” reformulate to “airborne data”.

6. “images created from oblique images”? The images are created from images??

7. Explain the meaning of the MMS acronym.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Manuscript PONE-D-23-16713

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the insightful comments and criticisms of our paper. We have incorporated all the reviewers' suggestions in the manuscript's new version. We hope that you will now find it appropriate for a recommendation. Those changes are highlighted in yellow within the manuscript.

Best wishes,

Yoshiki Ogawa, on behalf of all authors

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Author response: In response to the comment 1, we changed the file names.

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Author response: In response to the comment 2 and 3, we added the explanation after the Abstract as below.

Data Availability: The image data and LP/ MMS data analyzed in the study are provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (https://www.gsi.go.jp/ENGLISH/index.html) and Shizuoka prefecture via Association for Promotion of Infrastructure Geospatial Information Distribution (https://front.geospatial.jp/). These are open data and can be shared publicly. Our code is shared via GitHub (https://github.com/Project-PLATEAU/UC22-008-Building-matching-WebAPI).

4. We note that Figures 7,10 and 11 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,5,6,8 and 9 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. We note that Figures 1,2,5,6,8 and 9 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,5,6,8 and 9 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Author response: In response to the comment 4 and 5, we added the explanation for the figure 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11. Since the data is open data under CCBY4.0, "VIRTUAL SHIZUOKA © Shizuoka prefecture (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)" was added for the point cloud. "Aerial photograph ©Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)" was added for the aerial photographs. We use completely open data aerial imagery and other imagery that is free of copyright, so unlike Google imagery or paid imagery, we do not need to ask permission.

Review Comments to the Author:

Reviewer #1: This paper is intended to combine different types of data to develop a 3D city model. In today's cities, the concept of smart cities is clearly in need of multi-layer digital models of urban areas, and contributions like this one are always welcome.

Being aware of the limitations of their work, the authors achieved a high matching rate, which reveals the suitability of their method.

However, there are a few changes to be made to improve the quality of the paper:

- Abstract (and throughout the paper)

Please specify that the Ministry is from Japan.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we specified that the Ministry is from Japan.

The source of the point cloud data (aerial surveying or vehicle-mounted LiDAR) should be indicated the first time they are mentioned.

Author response: In response to the reviewer's comment, we specified that the source of the point cloud data was MMS.

What do the Authors mean by "a private map"? In this field, one expects to see government or institutional maps.

Author response: We have added the statement "maps created by a private company" because the relevant section is a description of a map created by a private company.

- Introduction

Please expand the research context at the beginning of this section. After that, the PLATEAU project and this paper's focus can be addressed.

Author response: We explained in 1. Introduction that 3D urban model development is not limited to PLATEAU but is taking place all over the world.

Acronyms should be fully written the first time they appear in the paper. E.g., MMS

Author response: In response to the reviewer's comment, we modified the usage of acronyms in 1. Introduction.

- Methodology

Given that a web API was developed, it is necessary to show some code, maybe in the form of simplified scripts, of the processes computed.

Author response: The URL of the website (https://project-plateau.github.io/UC22-008-Building-matching-WebAPI/) is provided in 4. Methodology, as the description of the relevant part is available on the website.

- Related work

At the end of this section, in view of previous research on the topic, the research gap should be synthesised, and the need of this paper justified.

Author response: At the end of the section, we point out improvements in this paper compared to existing methods.

- Conclusions

This section should not literally replicate the results data but constitute a synthesis of the research outcomes and their implications.

Author response: The repetition of numbers in the 2D matching results was removed in 6. Conclusions as it was deemed redundant and unnecessary.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

I have read carefully your manuscript entitled "Geometric-Based Approach for Linking Various Building Measurement Data to a 3D City Model". I consider this paper could be accepted for publication as the results are promising. Nevertheless, before its final acceptance, some issues should be undertaken.

My main concern is on references and their format:

-The citation referring to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is not consistently written in the text (a word is missing twice).

Author response: In response to the reviewer's comment, we modified the designated words in the citation.

-There are two references written in capital letters.

Author response: In response to the reviewer's comment, we corrected references written in capital letters to lower case.

-Finally, in my view, authors should include some recent references on the projective transformation usage when dealing with point clouds or walls (or façades). Please, consider including https://doi.org/10.3390/s23156924 and https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13020335.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we cited https://doi.org/10.3390/s23156924 and https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13020335 in 2. Related work.

Kind regards and congratulations on your research.

Reviewer #3: Summary

The study presents a Web API application for matching 2D polygons representing building footprints from different sources and a 3D point cloud with the 3D building models to create wall textures. The tests are carried out for the open 3D city model known as PLATEAU.

Overall comments

In my opinion, this paper can’t be published due to low presentation and the lack of novelty. I recommend that this paper be rejected. The paper is written like a general description, no scientific detail about the applied methods being presented.

In the abstract the authors mentioned different building measurement data from different sources, but throughout the paper only buildings footprints represented as polygons, 3D point clouds and buildings 3D models are mentioned. By the word “measurement”, the reader may be thinking about building height or other numeric information related to the building obtained by using different measurement instruments. Moreover, by “3D point clouds matching”, the reader can understand that two different point clouds has to be matched, as by “2D footprint matching”, two polygons are matched, but here, a 3D point cloud is matched with a building 3D model.

The method that projects the 3D point clouds on buildings facades to create textured walls, was published before. Please see:

Oniga, E.: A NEW APPROACH FOR THE SEMI-AUTOMATIC TEXTURE GENERATION OF THE BUILDINGS FACADES, FROM TERRESTRIAL LASER SCANNER DATA, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XXXIX-B6, 161–166, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXIX-B6-161-2012, 2012.

Author response: We cited https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXIX-B6-161-2012, 2012 and explained the difference in 2. Related work as below.

E. Oniga (2012) proposed an algorithm for the semiautomatic texture generation based on color information, RGB values of every point captured by terrestrial laser scanning technology, and 3D surfaces defining building facades generated using commercial 3D software. The operator needed to define the limiting value, i.e., the minimum distance between a point and the closest surface. In this study, the threshold used to choose the points to be projected was set automatically.

Specific comments

1. “aerial laser point cloud” should be reformulate as “Airborne Laser Scanner (ALS) point cloud”.

Author response: In response to the reviewer's comment, we reformulated the designated words in 2. Related work.

2. Figure 1 is of poor quality.

Author response: Since the figure in question is a conceptual figure and a detailed explanation is provided in Fig. 2, it was determined that the figure itself does not need to be changed. The word "conceptual" was added to the title of the figure to make it easier to understand that this figure is a conceptual diagram.

3. Figure 3 (a2), a scale bar should be added as the threshold for the polygons centroids matching is 10 m.

Author response: Since the corresponding figure shows the geometrical relationship between two-dimensional polygons, it was determined that no additional scale was necessary.

4. “aero images” reformulate to “aerial images”.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we reformulated the designated words.

5. “aircraft data” reformulate to “airborne data”.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we reformulated the designated words.

6. “images created from oblique images”? The images are created from images??

Author response: The indicated sections were deleted in 2. Related work because the same content was continuously included.

7. Explain the meaning of the MMS acronym.

Author response: The phrase Mobile Mapping System was added in 1. Introduction, where the word MMS first appears in the text.

Decision Letter - Ayesha Maqbool, Editor

Geometric-Based Approach for Linking Various Building Measurement Data to a 3D City Model

PONE-D-23-16713R1

Dear Dr. Ogawa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ayesha Maqbool, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors addressed all my comments. Just a minor change:

- Authors specified that the source of the point cloud data was MMS, but please, do it in the Introduction instead of in the Abstract.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing the comments I suggested to you. In my view, the manuscript is now ready to be accepted.

Kind regards

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ayesha Maqbool, Editor

PONE-D-23-16713R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ogawa,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ayesha Maqbool

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .