Revision of the manuscript

“CHILDA −  Czech Historical Landslide Database”

by Michal Bíl, Pavel Raška, Lukáš Dolák, Jan Kubeček.

General comments

The paper presents a new and unique complete database of historical landslide in Czech Republic. Despite in the past other authors compiled catalogues on historical landslides this work represents the fist effort in organize and systemize the existing information widespread in different catalogues and/or collected for small portions of the nation. Authors also collect new and original information not included in the previously prepared catalogues.

The abstract provides a concise, complete summary of the work done and the results obtained, even if I would remove the last sentence. I appreciate the short title that provides immediately the idea on the content of the manuscript. The size, quality and readability of figures are adequate even if I wold appreciate a figure showing the amount of landslides collected using the works/catalogue (mainly Špůrek 1972 and Bill 2020) and the new/original data on landslides (not obtained in previous catalogues). The authors give proper credit to previous and/or related work in the introduction and in the discussion section.

The overall structure of the paper is adequate, even if I suggest the to shorten the paragraph 2.1, because the information on geography are useful to understand the location of the OWC or CS or DV but the information on geological formations are not functional to the reader. Also paragraph 2.2.1 should be deleted or summarised in the introduction section.

The section Database structure could be improved also improving some definitions. The table shows the table structure, and not the structure of the records and the first row should be “Field Name”, “Description”, and “Field Type”. The List is called Dictionary. Other issues are in the specific comments in the pdf file.

The web map interface is well described and easy to navigate (I have tried it). I suggest to improve the English version (adding calendar to select the date in English language). I can suggest for the future to add base maps describing landslide susceptibly or population density.

In the result section I appreciate if you could prepare a map (similar to the one of density) showing also landslide frequency since the database is more complete (1891).

I appreciate a lot the limitation described in the discussion section, that are well written and argued, that provide the measure of the reliability of the dataset. Other comments are as comment in the pdf of the preprint. In my opinion the overall quality of the manuscript is good.

I’m not a native English and so I don’t feel qualify to evaluate English style and language.

The paper gives a good overview over the set up, data sources and content of the new Czech landlside database. The work is thorough, the presentation clear and the language appropiate. There are a few points that need to be discussed:

1. in the introduction and overview of landslide registers in the area, you name many studies and the number of slides that they encompass. In total, there are over 2000 slides mentioned. Why do you end up with only 667? You coud add a table setting up all possible sources named in the introduction and then tell us if you use the data and if not, why
2. I recognise that you use no references to international classifications and definitions in your choices of parameters and drop lists. Most of these have definitions. I am quite sure, that there is an iso standard for spatial and temporal unvertainty. For the landslides we have the modified Varnes classification
   
   Hungr, O., Leroueil, S., Picarelli, L., 2014. The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides 11, 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0436-y
   
   
   
   Varnes, D.J., 1978. Slope movement types and processes [Tipos y procesos de movimiento de pendientes]. Landslides Anal. Control. Transp. Res. board Spec. Rep. 176 1, 11–33.
   
   International compatebiity is only achieved when international terms and definitions are used
3. You discuss the temporal distribution of the slides during the last centuries. There is no chance that there is other reason than missing sources and documentation. Even today, manual registration is not very reliable and only remote sensing can give you the right answer on all landslides
4. Please elaborate more on the decission of stopping data aquisition in 1989. I am sure there is a lot of valuable data available for the period after.
5. Are you sure, you have designed the database for future data in the form of polygons or even 3D data?

We have had many of these discsussions when we set up our database in 2004 and many are stil not well answered. I wish you good luck and hope that you manage to find many more slides and that you will be able to share tme with your european colleagues.