Dear Daniele Giordan et al.,

Thank you again for your interesting submission "Low cost, multiscale and multi-sensor application for flooded areas mapping" as well as for the response to the comments of the referees.
The referees agree that the manuscript is of interest for the readers of NHESS and the flood risk community.
Combining the reports it appears to be necessary to provide more details about data and data processing steps as well as quantitative information about the performance and accuracy of classifications. Further, the need was stressed to provide a flow chart of the data sources, processing steps and results.

In addition, I would like to emphasize that you conduct a thorough English proof-reading and check of correct referencing, e.g. Guy et al. ,2015 is actually Schumann et al., 2015. Please also make sure to correctly and consistently reference online sources.

Your responses seem to take-up the constructive comments of the referees and will allow to present your approach and results more clear. Therefore, I decided for minor revision and I will review your revised manuscript.

Please follow the guidelines of NHESS to prepare and submit your revision (as .pdf) including (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response to each comment one by one, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript.

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Kind regards,
Kai Schröter

NHESS Editor

Dear Davide Notti and co-authors,
thank your very much for submitting the revised version of your manuscript.
I think all reviewer comments and your suggested changes to the manuscript have been implemented in a satisfactory manner.

However, reading through the manuscript it becomes apparent that English writing needs further improvement. This concerns grammar, terminology and spelling. Please consider proof reading by a native speaker.

In addition, further technical corrections are required which I kindly ask you to correct:
Please harmonize writing and use of abbreviations (e.g. SfM, sfm; façades, facades
Please harmonize referencing to Figures (Fig. or Figure or Fig), and check the sequence of referencing to Figures.
specific comments:
L 397 Consider if 'Supervised Classification.' can be deleted.
L403 The last sentence is incomplete.
L 465 ad -> as
LL 500 - 502: how can infer an exponential decrease from two instances in time? please consider rephrasing.
L515 2 - 3 m. The upper limit of the legend is 2m.
L526 units are missing
L534 purpose -> propose
LL 577 - 579 This sentence is not clear, please rephrase.
L 600 and 604 measures - > measurements

Please check if Fig. 2 is still needed after including Fig. 13.
caption Fig 6: photo took -> photos taken
caption Fig 7: 'allowed' can this be deleted? ... 'cut a:an erosion' Please check.
caption Fig 8: 'map of flooded Chisola flooded area' Please check.#
Figure 11: In the legend: River embankment ropture -> rupture; the GPS and SfM symbols cannot be seen on the map

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Kind regards,
Kai Schröter

NHESS Editor