Dear authors,
Based on the feedback from a second round of reviews, your manuscript can be considered as ready for publication after minor corrections. Below, I list the comments of both Reviewers. Both of them argue that the requested corrections/modifications are optional, but I would like to provide you, as the authors, to decide yourself whether to include them in the revision in order to make your manuscript of even more value for the community.
Please evaluate the provided Reviews and get back to me with a final revised version of the manuscript, which I will then forward to the Editorial/Typesetting.

Reviewer #1:
- I apologize for the confusion of my remark adressed in R1.31. I noted down L374 instead of L347 and intended to refer to the sentence "The riming detection is based on the typical fallspeed of more than 1.5ms−1 of strongly rimed particles." Here, I would suggest to include a reference. Other than that, all my comments were adressed in great detail. I appreciate the additional effort to include a statistical analysis of temperature differences in appendix C.

Reviewer #2:
- The reply addresses Comment R2.40 of the first revision. Response of Reviewer #2:
After re-reading this part of the manuscript, I think my request was about a matter of taste whether results and discussion should be mixed or not. I was missing a discussion of the results of the two Figures, especially Fig. 12b, but I you are actually providing a short assessment in the Discussion
section.
You formulated the following objective: “In the following, we want to investigate whether sites with greater riming and total precipitation also experience more intense precipitation, or if the increased totals are just due to longer precipitation duration”

This is answered in Fig. 12:
“Neglecting the outliers Neuhaus and Feldberg, there is almost no correlation between number of precipitation hours and riming events for the remaining sites (grey box in Figure 12a with a pearson correlation coefficient -0.06). In Figure 12b, we see the correlation between riming events
and average precipitation rate, with a focus on stronger precipitation events of at least 1 mm h−1. The correlation coefficient is 0.36 (grey box in Figure 12b, omitting the Feldberg radar).”

I would have liked to read a more to-the-point discussion of the initial question you asked, whether this means that riming and precipitation intensity are linked or not. You are mentioning it in the Discussion, and I over-read it the first time: “riming and total precipitation hours are uncorrelated,
while there is a (weak) correlation between riming and precipitation rate.” Then you list other studies relating riming and precipitation intensity.
To me as a reader, a more concise interpretation of the results of Fig. 12 in the context of these other studies would have helped understand the results easier. You can consider trying to bring them more to the point, or leave as is.

Here is what I got out of the text, maybe this is of use to you:
- There are several other studies pointing to such a correlation
- In this present study, you do observe a correlation, albeit weak, but it also makes sense that this
relationship is hard to observe.
- This study is the first one to consider many equidistant sites in the same climatic region, and
shows the influence of orography (as well as natural variability?)

Dear Paul Ockenfuß et al.,
thank you very much for putting the additional, final efforts in shaping the discussion of your study. The given arguments are well presented and elaborated on.
I don't see any remaining issues, except for the two tiny technical ones:
1) Line 398: First sentence should end with ".... occur in."
2) Line 432: remove the new paragraph. The first sentence in Line 432 is directly associated to the last sentence of the previous paragraph. There is no need to separate the content.

Please add these final two adjustments and proceed with the submission of the material to the typesetting.