This is potentially a very neat description of a well defined piece of work: the application of Google Earth to a couple of design projects. The paper falls into the trap (which many of us do) of spending too long on the background and not enough on describing the original aspects of the work. The paper needs to be expanded. The section describing the original work could be enlarged to provide more detail about what was done and how it was done.

For example, what is the outcome of the Karlstal project? How has it benefitted its users? I would also like to know more about Travel 2.0 (references?) and how does this relate to the work described here. Similarly, it would be interesting to know more about the applications resulting from Uni 3D. Also, what are the limitations of this approach? How is terrain modelling handled? And, most importantly in landscape application, how is vegetation treated? It may not be possible to answer all of these questions in a conference paper, but it would be reassuring to know that the author(s) have at least thought of these and other questions rather than blindly adopting the Google technology.

Furthermore, there is no concluding section, drawing together the main points from the paper and the directions that future work could follow. Some ideas about who needs to do what are presented but it would be good to see these fleshed out in greater detail.

As in some other papers, the figures are important to understanding the content of the research and in this version they are too small to see any useful detail. Since the paper is not overly long (8 pages) I suggest the author(s) enlarge key images and, if necessary, reduce the number of figures to maintain a suitable length of paper.

Although the paper is generally readable, there are a few sentences where the meaning is not entirely clear or the grammar is incorrect. It needs a thorough proofreading by a native English speaker.

Reference citation in the text is non-standard and needs to be corrected.