Dear Authors,

please find the comments of the re-review by reviewer 1 attached below. Your have responded adequately to many of the concerns raised, and revised the paper accordingly. What is left to do is to address the minor comments of reviewer 2 below. This can be done relatively quickly, and we can then move forward with moving the paper out of the discussions into the peer-reviewed format. Congratulations for all your work that you put into this.

Kind regards, Reinhard drews

Dear Authors,

thank you for responding to the comments in this second round of review. The reviewer has indicated that you adequately addressed the majority of the concerns and I echo his/her judgement. Congratulations to a well designed paper & study that will hopefully be picked up by the wider science community. Below I mention some minor comments which you may want to consider during typesetting.

Kind regards,

Reinhard Drews


P2 l 7 “at 10 cm horizontal resolution” (add horizontal. Maybe worthwhile to state vertical accuracy here as well.

P 5 line 17: “the glacier appears to flow” -> “the glacier flow becomes apparent relative to static targets in the surrounding” (after all the glacier does flow)

P7 line 15: Briefly state the advantage of MatchingMapMaker vs. the others. I assume MatchingMapMaker is faster for your dataset (roughly by how much?). I have no experience using these techniques and would find this info interesting.

P10 l 15: What is the mean ice displacement in your area of interest? State relative error estimate.

Acknowledgements: Consider thanking the reviewers for their input.