An Integrated Platform for Ground-Motion Mapping, Local to Regional Scale; Examples from SE Europe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes an integrated platform for ground-motion mapping, which can work at multi-scale. According to the title, the main focus of the paper is an “integrated platform”. This is only addressed in a relatively small section (2.1), which is is rather weak. In order to keep this title, please highlight the key components of the platform and its novelty. Otherwise please change the focus of the paper.

Page 2, line 71: “Thus, Terrasigna, as a Terrafirma-certified service provider …”. Avoid such an advertising statement. Keep talking about the platform, not Terrasigna.

Page 2, line 93: “in a format that makes possible quick spatial and temporal inspection (Figure 1)”. Figure 1 does not illustrate such a spatial and temporal inspection capability.

Page 4: “2.1 Online data integration platform”. According to the title, this is the main focus of the paper. The section is rather weak. Please highlight the key components of the platform and the novelty of the platform.

Page 6, Fig. 4: please improve the quality of the figure. Move the text “a” and “b” to the caption. In 4.b show the location of Romania.

Page 6, line 215: “250000 square km”. Four frames cover less surface: approx. 200.000 km2.

Page 8, Section 3.2. "Regional scale post-processing". What do you mean by “Regional”? Please revise this. What is the relation with Criteria a and b? The entire section 3.2 is unclear.

Page 16, Figure 15a. Please add the scale.

Page 18, Figure 16.b. The plots are too small.

Page 19, Figure 17. Please explain how the “subsidence” and “uplift” are derived. The interpretation of these results is not clear. Please improve it. This is critical.

Page 20, Figure 18. Please explain how the two maps are derived. The meaning of the two maps is unclear. Please explain them better. This is critical.

Page 23, Line 617: “Other algorithms are optimized to extract the linear component of the displacement rate, which is a parameter of interest for long term monitoring (such as for the dynamics of the tectonic plates). These algorithms do not produce the exact temporal local motion pattern but they do not filter the data before extracting the displacement rate; in this way, all the linear displacement information at any scale will be preserved”. The fact that you do not filter does not imply that “all the linear displacement information at any scale is preserved”: in fact, the atmospheric effects also influence the estimated linear displacements. This is potentially critical.

Page 24, Figure 22 is not very useful.

Page 24, line 664: “All the open access current and future data are envisioned to be integrated into the open access PSTool platform”. Do you mean all the data cover all Europe? Please discuss the data management issues (volume of data, visualization, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall this is a good paper. The number of examples applying PSI is impressive. It is obvious that the data processing that went into developing this paper is extensive. 

Generally, the figure captions could be more descriptive and some of the figures could be improved. 

• The scale and text in b and c of Figure 1 are not easily legible.
• Figure 2: The text is really difficult to read, it would be helpful to include more description of what the tool shows. The text describes a selection poly but no poly is shown. It is not clear to me what the points in the displacement vs time figures represent. Average displacement over an area or along a line?
• Figure 3: Station labels and displacements are unreadable. There is a red star on the left of the image with a different format and no label. Is this significant?
• Figure 5: Caption is not very descriptive. The labeling of the figures is different than the following images (i.e., a and b represent four figures rather than a, b, c, and d. It is not clear to me how data from the lower image is presented in the upper image (Displacement along a line, over an area?) Why are there fewer points in b? Both maps show color scales of deformation in mm/year. Is this correct? If so, how does b represent a change of rate? 
• Figure 6: Useful to include some description of how season motions were identified. Is the same data presented in c and d?
• Figure 7 b: What does the circle identify? It is not explicit in the caption or the text. 
• Figure 8: Polygon represents?
• Figure 9: What data does the inset represent?
• For Figure 8 and Figure 9, why are the displacements initially largely positive?
• Figure 10: It would be helpful if you described the circled areas more explicitly in the text/caption. Maybe number the areas. What is the significance of the polygon inset in the lower circle in a?

Divide symbol (%) on lines 342, 364, & 383 should be replaced with a dash.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The answers and the improvement of the manuscript are satisfactory. I propose to accept the paper for publication.