italicise

Corrected. Thanks

There was a factor of 2 missing. Thanks, now it is corrected.

check numbering

is this a new section?

Corrected

check numbering (following from previous)

All numbering was updated. Cheers

check numbering

This was also updated. Thx

use of ‘deg’ above instead of degree symbol?

Degree symbol inserted. Thanks

CLARITY

I am not sure what this means, nor how this is supported by figure 1, and I can’t easily find a definition elsewhere.

The first two sentences were re-written to expand the meaning that was being conveyed. The point was that the relative position between satellites was assumed to have an optimum where they functioned best. This was further explained. Also, the figure number was corrected to the appropriate picture below. Cheers

does not change with respect to

Corrected on new release. Cheers

REPRODUCABIILTY

It may be helpful to include a diagram as part of your answer to this question

Diagram included to better clarify the solution to the problem.

distance from engineers A to the projection at point O

Corrected. Cheers

Corrected

alpha comma gamma

Figure number updated. Thanks

Check figure number

Check figure number

Figure number updated

“does not change relative to point”

SPELLING

Subsequently

Spelling modified as proposed.

CLARITY

I think you need to indicate before here that the engineers have equal height (above the river?)

QUESTION

What if the engineers don’t have equal height?

That is a good challenge ! By adding an inclination to AB of say 10 degrees, the computation of the new height of C to the line AB can be achieved by re-applying the extended sine function to the triangle BOC (O being the base of the height), with the modification that the obtuse angle BOC is now 90 + 10 degrees. This results in the desired answer, which has been included in the new draft of the paper. Thanks for that !

Check figure number

Updated. Cheers

CLARITY

Anyone who knows the cosine rule knows the relative positions of the side lengths and the angle gamma, but it still frustrates when it isn’t explicitly indicated.

Up to you if you want to add a phrase in this paragraph to clarify where the angle is.

Yes, I see your point. To make it clear, a figure highlighting the location of the angles and sides x, y and z in a scalene triangle has been included. Cheers

a

Corrected

Not sure if it’s *required*

desired perhaps?

Agreed and replaced

CLARITY

“Dealing with” seems a little unclear - what are we actually doing with the scalene triangle?

I’m also not sure about the word ‘The” at the start - implies that there is only one way that these kinds of problems are solved. Maybe “A typical approach…”?

Ok, so “A typical approach to finding the side lengths and angles of a scalene triangle is to subdivide it into two right triangles and employ trigonometric operations.”

Indeed the words needed to be polished. I have replaced the sentence with your expression, for it is more framed to transmit the targeted intention. Thanks

CLARITY

Missing angle notation?

Yes, here the program did not copy the angles from another draft holding the original draft. Angles added now. Thanks

CLARITY

Something is missing in here

Values of angles 60 and 120 degrees added. Thanks for highlighting this.