Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
A 3D Geodatabase for Urban Underground Infrastructures: Implementation and Application to Groundwater Management in Milan Metropolitan Area
Previous Article in Journal
Privacy-Aware Visualization of Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) to Analyze Spatial Activity: A Benchmark Implementation
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Smooth Transition Algorithm for Adjacent Panoramic Viewpoints Using Matched Delaunay Triangular Patches
Article
Peer-Review Record

Accurate Road Marking Detection from Noisy Point Clouds Acquired by Low-Cost Mobile LiDAR Systems

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9(10), 608; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijgi9100608
Reviewer 1: Hamid Reza Pourghasemia
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9(10), 608; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijgi9100608
Received: 16 September 2020 / Revised: 10 October 2020 / Accepted: 18 October 2020 / Published: 20 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Measuring, Mapping, Modeling, and Visualization of Cities)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Fast Road marking detection from noisy point clouds 3 acquired by low-cost mobile LiDAR systems

Dear Editor

I have read the above article; I think it is important to edit this article very carefully according to major comments. Unfortunately, methodology and discussion are poor.

 

Abstract

Please add some quantitative results in this part.

Keywords

Please use upper cases for the first word in this part.

I think figs 2, 3, and 4 are suitable or you could combine them in one figure.

I think Figs. 5, 6, and 7 aren’t your methodology.

 

Method

In general, it is important to edit methodology. This part has to write again. Any study area? Its features?

Eq. 5

In reality, this is your methodology, isn’t a result.

Discussion

This part is written poor. Please rewrite.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We gratefully acknowledge you for your careful reading and constructive comments, which very much helped us to improve the manuscript from different aspects.

According to the comments, we have tried our best to revise the manuscript to make it better, and an item-by-item response follows. The modified parts have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Besides, the English editing service from MDPI was employed. The editing certificate was provided and the edited content was highlighted in the revised Word as well.

Once again, we are particularly grateful for your careful reading and constructive comments. Thanks very much for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Junxiang Tan

Corresponding author: Junxiang Tan

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written and is a satisfactory contribution in this specific field of detecting road  markings from point clouds. Overall this work is good quality and useful.  However some minor revisions/ additions/ clarifications , as mentioned in the comments and suggestions , would enhance the quality of the paper.

  1. Line 22 When the abbreviation first shown in a paper, the authors should explain it (e.g. MCC).
  2. Please better specify the aim of the work and indicate what is the novelty (e.g. line 80).
  3. Line 150 “Generally, the reflected intensity values recorded by point clouds are affected greatly by incidence angles and scanning distances [23,24].” This sentence can be confusing. The effect on the intensity of the returning TLS/MLS laser beam has a target reflectivity ρ, an angle of incidence, a range between the TLS/MLS and target, an atmospheric transmission factor and a system transmission factor. The value of the target reflectivity ρ is affected by multiple factors, the most important include colour, roughness and humidity of the scanned surface. In your research, you mainly use the colour change of the scanned surface (from black to white). The colour change strongly affected on the change intensity value. So I have a suggestion. Add a paragraph and briefly describe the "laser equation".
  4. Line 172 “The intensity values of road marking points are often higher than those of the surrounding road points.” Please explain why (obviously a change in colour and roughness).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We gratefully acknowledge you for your careful reading and constructive comments, which very much helped us to improve the manuscript from different aspects.

According to the comments, we have tried our best to revise the manuscript to make it better, and an item-by-item response follows. The modified parts have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Besides, the English editing service from MDPI was employed. The editing certificate was provided and the edited content was highlighted in the revised Word as well.

Once again, we are particularly grateful for your careful reading and constructive comments. Thanks very much for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Junxiang Tan

Corresponding author: Junxiang Tan

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposed a fast road marking detection technique for noisy point clouds from low-cost multi-beam LiDAR scanners. The reviewer suggests that the manuscript should be revised and improved according to the following comments:

Major points:

1) Some explanations on the methods/figures are weak.

- In figure 3, “… the remained points are partitioned into a set of … perpendicular to the driving direction as shown in Figure 3(a)”. There are no details on the definition of width, driving direction.

- Why and when local coordinate system is used (Fig3-b)?

- What is the relationship between Fig3-a and Fig4? Where a moving fitting window filter works? What is the details of a window (length? Overlap?, etc)? how a seed point is selected?

2) Figure 6 looks broken. Also, it would be better to see the ground-truth road markings for the same area.

3) The reviewer does not feel the red and yellow numbers in Figure 9, 10, 11 are necessary. For example, yellow number #1, #2, #3, and #4 in Figure 9-11 do not have any relationships, but they are numbered sequentially which makes some confusions. Also, why those boxes are differently colored? Any distinct difference between them?

4) In line 274, the authors mentioned like “As can be seen, the method is able to extract road markings completely correctly from mono-beam MLS data”, but the dataset I, ii are actually from multi-beam scanners.

5) In line 304, the authors mentioned that “The vehicles are only allowed to drive in the exit lane at low speed. The road surface in the exit lane is less worn, so the intensity values of the road points are relatively higher.” But, the reviewer cannot clearly understand the context of this paragraph. What is the point of this? Does this indicate a regulation on experimental environment?

6) Why experimental results on mono-beam dataset is included in Discussion section? They also need to be in “Experiments” section. Also, in Table 2, the numbers of Pth, Nth, Ith for dataset III and IV are relatively higher, compared to those for dataset I and II, and exactly same. Are they correct numbers?

7) The authors mentioned that they manually labelled road markings for quantitative evaluation. It would be nice to see more details on the labels (e.g., a list of class (marking category), the number of samples for each category, and so on).

8) In Table 1, running time is reported. Is this for the entire data? Also, the proposed system consists of 3 parts: road surface extraction, road marking extraction, and road marking refinements. However, the running time for road marking extraction is only reported here. Can the authors provide the total running time?

9) With respect to the running time, even though the title of this manuscript is “Fast road marking …”, actually the reported running time is not better than the previous work. Therefore, the reviewer cannot understand how fast the proposed method is. It would be better to add average required running time of other research works for road marking extraction for fair comparison.

10) The conclusion needs to convey limitations of the current work.

 

Minor points:

1) There are some grammar/typo errors in the manuscript. A thorough review of language is required.

2) Some words are unnecessarily capitalized.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We gratefully acknowledge you for your careful reading and constructive comments, which very much helped us to improve the manuscript from different aspects.

According to the comments, we have tried our best to revise the manuscript to make it better, and an item-by-item response follows. The modified parts have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Besides, the English editing service from MDPI was employed. The editing certificate was provided and the edited content was highlighted in the revised Word as well.

Once again, we are particularly grateful for your careful reading and constructive comments. Thanks very much for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Junxiang Tan

Corresponding author: Junxiang Tan

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Thank you so much for considering the suggested comments. 

I am pleased to accept this article in the current status. 

Best

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We gratefully acknowledge you for your careful reading and constructive comments, which very much helped us to improve the manuscript from different aspects.

We have revised item by item and the responses to your and the other reviewers' comments on the manuscript have been uploaded.

Once again, we are particularly grateful for your careful reading and constructive comments. Thanks very much for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Junxiang Tan

Corresponding author: Junxiang Tan

E-mail: [email protected]

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of the concerns raised by the reviewer have been addressed.

Few minor concerns:

  1. It would be better to indicate the blue line in Figure 3 is a pseudo scan line?
  2. The font style of the most inline symbols is not consistent with the main text. The reviewer thinks this can be discussed with the editing team.
  3. "Precision road marking" in the title might cause some confusion. Is this term focusing on "accurate"? or "road marking that is sophisticated"?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We gratefully acknowledge you for your careful reading and constructive comments, which very much helped us to improve the manuscript from different aspects.

We have revised item by item and the responses to your comments on the manuscript have been uploaded.

Once again, we are particularly grateful for your careful reading and constructive comments. Thanks very much for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Junxiang Tan

Corresponding author: Junxiang Tan

E-mail: [email protected]

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Back to TopTop