(1) General comment: could the authors be more precise when they write ‘the most appropriate interpolation technique’. In the abstract: “shows a study of the most appropriate interpolation technique". Later: “the RK could be the best interpolation technique[…]”. In the conclusion: “A deep analysis of the different interpolation techniques was carried out in order to find the most appropriate for near-time applications too." (2) Abstract: the authors state that the GNSS can provide an innovative contribution but they provide quite old references (e.g., Bevis et al. 1992). Would it be possible to have more recent references? (3) In the introduction I would like to read a little bit more about the novelty of this work: what makes the difference compared to what already exists. Maybe one or two sentences with a few more references. (4) The choice of the input data is not justified (why NOAA? why this study area? How were the 4 checkpoints selected?). I understand that this is a short version of the paper (maximum 1500 words). Therefore I suggest that the authors, if they do not elaborate in this version of the paper, justify their choice in the forthcoming full version (5) Reference to GRASS software is missing in the core text? (there is a reference at the end of the document only) (6) Language is good but could be improved. For example: "The case study is the severe meteorological event occurred on 4th November 2011 in Genoa (Italy)”, “for not needing to calibrate additional parameters”, “… in the future complete paper
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily