Dear authors,
The reports from the reviewers have been received. Please include the corrections suggested by the reviewer (Report #2).

Best regards,
Raquel Evaristo

Dear authors,
after reading the manuscript once more, I found a few remaining typos and small mistakes that should be corrected before the publication. They are listed below. The line numbers concern the document with the tracked changes.

Line 56: I believe this should be “within one scan”.

Lines 64-67:
“This and the fact that both QVP methods loose spatial information due to the azimuthal averaging that includes the whole 360◦ PPI measurement range, limit the use of QVP methods in combination with other measurement equipment further away from the PPI scanning radar as the extracted QVPs might not fully correspond to the measurements of the off-site equipment.”
This sentence is too long and very hard to follow. Suggestion:
“This combined the fact that both QVP methods loose spatial information due to the 360° azimuthal averaging limit the use of QVP methods in combination with vertically measurement equipment further away from the PPI scanning radar since the extracted QVPs might not adequately represent the measurements of the off-site equipment.”

Legend of Figure 1: “Shown are also all operational cloudnet sites (yellow) and the two dedicated radar systems (blue) utilized for comparison.”

Line 135: “spatially separated radar systems” (instead of radars).

Legend of Figure 2: Add a period at the end.

Legend of Figure 3: “Dedicated and operational radars are marked red and blue, respectively.” It seems like the colors are reversed in this sentence.

Line 310: Suggest change ”The method therefore automatically puts more weight in the measured volumes that most closely represent the contents of the height bin.”

Line 311: Suggest remove “Following”.
“This procedure allows ...”

Line 352: Add a period at the end of the sentence.

Line 422: Add commas: "which, as seen in Fig. 8 (e), offers mostly gapless coverage..."

Lines 466-467: "In general, the lowest elevation angles are strongly influenced by clutter and therefore little to no reliable signature of hydrometeors for lower altitudes is measurable." This sentence seems to suggest that the lowest scans are consistently unreliable, which is kind of misleading. It is better to include some additional information saying that this is the case for gates close to the radar but not everywhere.

Legend of figure 11: Replace "for a more stratiform time period..." with "for the stratiform time period...".

Line 506: Correct the typo "through the measurement region."

Line 534: "in roughly 3 km height..." I think "in" is not the correct preposition to use here. Suggest rewriting "around 3 km height...".

Line 584: "has to be expected" replace with "was expected."

Legend of figure 13: Close brackets after (b). "MHP (b and differential reflectivity in a BA-CVP"
 Line 684: Replace "even finer details" with "even fine details" (finer suggests a comparison : finer than...)

Lines 693-694: "over the whole Germany"

Appendix A: It makes sense to include the corresponding radial resolution and indicate that the different PRF (and radial resolution) correspond to the specific events.