We have received three valuable reviews for this manuscript. While the reviewers in general like the work, they also all raise important issues and recommend major revisions. A large part of the comments is related to structure and language, here a thorough copy-editing by a (professional) native speaker is hightly recommended. There are also important comments on methodological aspects that should be carefully considered. In addition to the many good points made by the reviewers, I would like to raise the question of how to assess whether the model/data can be declared to be 'successful'. I would argue that some form of comparison/benchmark would be valuable to show the added value of the data products. To put it a bit provokative, even if we would not have any data, we could make some guesses based on seasonality/climatology etc. How much better are we with the data?

Just one language comment:
"Based on our results, we currently cannot recommend the unrestricted use ..."
Express your recommendation clearer, the double negation sounds a bit confusing

Best regards,
Jan Seibert

thanks for your efforts with the revisions. While all three reviewers agree that the manuscript has improved, they also list a number of points where further improvement is needed. The required revisions, however, seem straight-forward.

Small comment on Fig 8: Please clarify that the thin lines refer to snow and the right axis.

Thanks for your careful and well-documented revisions.