Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your revisions and for responding to the reviews. Both reviewers have clearly indicated that this is a useful and comprehensive dataset worthy of publication. I do agree with the reviewer’s recommendation and congratulate all of you for an extensive and meaningful piece of work.

Below I have a number of minor remarks that should be considered prior to moving on to the next step.

Kind regards, Reinhard Drews


l. 33 increased in size (small glaciers)

l. 40 Remove “Precise”

l. 64 “very high-resolution” -> “better resolved”

l. 89 remove “In this study,..”

l. 91 “in in“

l. 99 specify number of participants

l. 138 remove “unique” (unless there are non-unique tiles which would require an explanation).

l. 184 remove “As mentioned above,” and start with “Outlines…”

l. 186 “with very high spatial resolution (better than 1 m)” -> “with a spatial resolution smaller than 1 m”…

l. 189 Quantify “very small”

l. 190 I don’t understand “..digitised with larger extents.”. If they weren’t mapped before, how can their extents be “larger” (compared to what?)? Rephrase.

l. 196 Quantify or estimate “locally poor geolocation” in meters.

l. 201 “straight forward” -> “straightforward”

l. 203 Abbreviation NDSI occurs only once. Remove.


l. 227 How do you know that the rock shadow is wrongly mapped? Supposedly because you know the test site very well, but this should be stated explicitly. The same holds for the following sentences. It is unclear where the knowledge of “correctness” comes from.

l. 234 remove “before”.

l. 241 “very small snow patches” rephrase quantitiatively. Do you mean “snow patches < 0.01 km…” ?

l. 254 is “pixel spacing” something different that the wording “resolution” used earlier? If not, stick to using “resolution” only.

l. 324 again “very high resolution”. Too many things are “high-resolution” in this paper. Better state or at least estimate the gridding in meters. Alternatively refer to “higher-resolution” and make sure what the comparison refers to.

l. 471 How large is that shift in meters? Due to wrong geocoding?

l. 479 define the term “very small glacier” once and then use it consistently, or (which is what I would prefer) just state it explicitly (here glaciers < XX km^2 ..)

l. 518 “very high resolution”

l. 526 “even at this high spatial resolution” I am again lost which resolution you are refer to. Use numbers instead. Also in the following lines.

l. 540 Large differences in topographic parameters, or large differences between the two DEMs? Rephrase.

l. 542 remove “see”

l. 548 Add “radar penetration in snow/firn”. I don’t think there should be radar penetration issues for bare ice in the ablation zone.

l. 558 remove “really”

The entire section 5 contains many discussion elements (e.g. l. 523 “…can be discussed.”) and I don’t see the section 6 heading “Discussion” as justified. Please make the distinction between the two sections Results and Discussion more prominent by moving content from the Results into the Discussion.


Figure 2 label (b) is barely visible. Use a white background box. Are the “cJaxa” and “cDLR” signs really necessary and what is the difference compared to a citation?

Figure 7 Label Elevation needs reference (e.g., a. s. l. or WGS84,…)

Add spatial coordinates to Figures 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11

Labels on many Figures are too small (e.g., inset Figure 7) or boarderline small. Please make sure to submit publication ready Figures for the final version.

Dear Autors,

thank you for considering many of my minor comments in the previous iteration. The paper is now ready for publication subjects to few technical corrections suggested below. Congratulations for the derivation of a new inventory that will hopefully used as a baseline for many other researchers.

Kind regards,

Reinhard Drews

Consider using subscripts for thresholds th_1 and th_2

Figure S1 enter scale bar

Supplemental Data: Is that shp file not part of the doi repository?

l. 220 Unify using "Figure" or "Fig."

l. 226 th1 is not fully in italics

l. 405 Unify use of significant digits (.88 km v.s .1 in line 406).

l. 438 "receipt" I think you mean "received" ?

l. 604 remove "so-called"

l. 643 please add: "The editor thanks Andrea Fischer and Sam Herreid for constructive and meaningful reviews."