Dear authors,

Thank you very much for addressing carefully the reviewer comments.

I have examined your revision and your responses to the reviewers.
My assessment is that you have responded adequately to the reviewers. However, due to major changes in some parts of the manusscript I'd value a assessment by the referees to whether the revision fully addresses their earlier concerns.


Sincerely,

Ketil Isaksen
Editor
The Cryosphere

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for addressing carefully the reviewer comments.

I have examined your revision and your responses to the reviewers. 
My assessment is that you have responded adequately to the reviewers. However, due to major changes in some parts of the manusscript I'd value a assessment by the referees to whether the revision fully addresses their earlier concerns.


Sincerely,

Ketil Isaksen
Editor
The Cryosphere

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for addressing carefully the reviewer comments.

I have examined your revision and your responses to the reviewers.
My assessment is that you have responded adequately to the reviewers. However, due to major changes in some parts of the manusscript I'd value a assessment by the referees to whether the revision fully addresses their earlier concerns.


Sincerely,

Ketil Isaksen
Editor
The Cryosphere

Dear Céline Portenier and co-authors,

We have received the second revision of your submission tc-2019-142, “Towards a webcam-based snow cover monitoring network: methodology and evaluation”. The reviewer recommend this paper published as it is with a very few minor suggestions (some of them optional, see below).

Given these revisions and responses, together with the improvements you made in preparing the earlier revision, I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in The Cryosphere.

You will be hearing further from the journal concerning next steps in the publication process. In the meantime, congratulations on the acceptance!

Thank you once again for considering The Cryosphere for the publication of your paper.


Sincerely,
Ketil Isaksen
Editor
The Cryosphere



Review comments

Minor Comments:

Comment 1: I would recommend adding following references optional which I believe useful to audiences:

Page 1: for in-situ measurements:
Pirazzini, R.; Leppänen, L.; Picard, G.; Lopez-Moreno, J.I.; Marty, C.; Macelloni, G.; Kontu, A.; Von Lerber, A.; Tanis, C.M.; Schneebeli, M.; De Rosnay, P.; Arslan, A.N. European In-Situ Snow Measurements: Practices and Purposes. Sensors 2018, 18, 2016.

Page 21: “In addition, our webcam-based snow cover product can be used to validate Sentinel-2 and Landsat based snow cover products”
It would be good to list earlier studies on webcam-based snow cover product which were used for validation satellite-derived products like Sentinel-2 and Landsat. There is one given below

Piazzi, G.; Tanis, C.; Kuter, S.; Simsek, B.; Puca, S.; Toniazzo, A.; Takala, M.; Akyürek, Z.; Gabellani, S.; Arslan, A. Cross-Country Assessment of H-SAF Snow Products by Sentinel-2 Imagery Validated against In-Situ Observations and Webcam Photography. Geosciences 2019, 9, 129.

Comment 2:
Page 3, Line 13: “They propose to apply the blue band classification by Salvatorietal. (2011) and subsequently use principal component analysis (PCA) to separate shaded snow cover from sunlit rock surfaces..”

This sentence is not linked to previous one and I believe should be rewritten like what is “they”.. NOT CLEAR!