The revised version of the manuscript posted in July 14th has incorporated significant
changes in order to address the major concerns issued by the reviewers, which can be
summarized as:
1- The need for a better review of the topic, as well a more clear use of terminology
along the manuscript.

2- An actual comparison of the accuracy and results obtained by both techniques.
3- Improved information about the badland processes occuring in the experimental
area measured by TLS and SFM.

After checking with reviewers 1 and 2, they agreed with me in that the authors have improved the MS in the line indicated by the reviewers. So, mu recommendation is that this manuscript should be published subject to some very minor technical corrections, listed below, indicates by reviewer 2.

Best regards,


PS: Please find below the final minor corrections requested before publication.
line 119: "Digital photogrammetry" (no article)
line 128: "no-known" should be "unkown"
line 131: ""GCPs" (plural)
line 149: "different" should be "various"
line 225: I still do not understand this sentence - how can a camera provide something better than classical photogrammetry, i.e. how can a device be better than a method?
Section 2.4 and your answer to my original comment "16. Page 345. Line 13": I have not quite understood your explanation here. Do you mean that you have used an arbitrary local coordinate system? I.e. you used the local coordinates measured by the TLS for these points during the first survey, and transformed the point cloud measured during the second survey into this first local coordinate system?
line 417: "especial" should be "special"
line 428: " which do not enable" should read "which does not allow"
line 439: "distances, is " ommit comma
line 441: "In the contrary, SfM technique, does not" should read "On the contrary, the SfM technique does not"
line 443: garbled sentence. Make new sentence after citation brackets: "This is one of the main advantages when compared to TLS."
your answer to "23. Page 349. Line 28 and Page 350 line 1." - You are right, the numbers are indeed correct in the current manuscript, although they do not appear in track changes - in the discussion paper version they were wrong as I had indicated. I do not know why this happened - in any case, they are correct like this now!
Figure captions 5-10: Spell the software correctly according to its proprietary name: CloudCompare
Figure 9 and 10: I realize that three parts are more easily arranged in one row, but these really are too small... could you lease use the same scale as the previous figures?

Dear Dr Nadal Romero

You will see that the Topical Editor has raised a number of minor technical issues that need to be addressed. Once this has happened and you have uploaded the revised paper we can go ahead with publication.

With best wishes
John Quinton