Dear Authors, thank you for posting the final comments.

All reviews and comments of the paper highlight the scientific value of your data, and I happily join the comments that it takes significant logistical efforts to obtain such data in the first place. The reviewers and community comments also raise some partially overlapping concerns pertaining to clarity of the methods and also the scientific reach of the conclusions. Your response-to-reviews acknowledges the large majority of the comments as constructive and indicate the planned revisions. Please go ahead and submit a revised version together with a track changes which I will send to re-review.

Kind regards, Reinhard Drews

Dear Authors,

we have received one re-review who was very positive and happy with the changes applied. Please have a look at the suggested changes which are mostly of editorial nature. The second reviewer was not able to submit a report, but I did check in with him/her and also got a clear response towards publication. I agree with both reviewers and happily accept this paper for The Cryosphere.

Getting TRI data in the field (especially in polar regions) is always a significant effort and I congratulate all of you for this great dataset and significant scientific analysis. I am confident that other researchers will built on you work.

Kind regards, Reinhard Drews

Minor edits that I came across while checking the paper:

make section title 2.2.1 a bit more informative "radar" -> "terrestrial radar interferometry"

Out of interest: What baseline errors are you refering to in l 189 (tracked changes)? Unlike as is the case for satellites, the spatial baseline of the TRI should hopefully not be a significant sources of uncertainty.

Thank you for providing the code on Github. I suggest to get a time-stamped DOI so that this code is clearly linked to this paper.