Dear authors,

thank you for revising your manuscript and for responding in detail to the reviewer's concerns. I am very pleased both with the constructive criticism by the reviewers and by your in-depth response. After re-review, the reviewer's suggestion is to publish the paper in ESSD and I gladly follow their recommendation. Congratulations to a substantial piece of work that will hopefully be picked up by the ice-sheet modelling community.

Below I have some final remarks on how this paper can be improved. Don't feel obliged to consider all of them, but please consider strengthening the conclusions which is a widely read section and currently undersells the potential of the study.

Kind regards
Reinhard Drews

Change last two sentences in abstract:

In order to demonstrate the importance of the basal boundary conditions for ice-sheet modelling, we changed the shear friction angle to account for a weaker substrate and found up to 40% changes in ice thickness compared to a reference run. Although incorporation of the ice-bed boundary remains model-dependent, our dataset provides an observational baseline for improving a critical weakness in current ice-sheet modelling.

P4, l 16f not sure if the square meters have to be stated in addition to the square kilometers. I suggest removal.

Figure 1 and 3: I would prefer a grey (rather than pink) bedrock.

Figure 2: Scale bar and axis labels are missing.

Revise 3.1 Change section heading to something more meaningful than "Parameters"

Conclusions: A large amount of work has gone into compiling this dataset. The conclusions don’t convey that. In fact they read a little as if you ran out of breath.

Consider adding a few sentences in order to spice up the conclusions, and keep in mind that this section will be (after the abstract) the most widely read. Suggestions for inclusion are things like: “This dataset is a compilation out of XX geologic studies conducted between 19XX and 20XX and covers all of North America, Greenland and surrounding areas. We merged and optimized these different datasets for usage in low-resolution, long-timescale ice-sheet modeling. Using a specific model setup as an example, we show that significant thickness differences (up to 40 %) occur depending on which sediment type is prescribed at the ice-bed interface. This new dataset improves previously existing dataset by A,B and C and will be an important for better understanding processes at the ice-bed boundary. This is a critical parameter for the reconstruction of past ice sheets and hence for our understanding of past sea level variations (or whatever you think is the most important application) … “