I am happy with your proposed responses to the reviewers and encourage you to resubmit an updated version of this interesting paper.
Best wishes,
Ed.

Many thanks for your revised version. I have some additional comments, mainly to strongly encourage you to remember that this is a non-specialist journal and has a broad readership across the geosciences. Many readers will not be familiar with some of the earthquake terminology used and so more explanation of many technical terms is necessary.

1) Abstract line 3 - shape or shake?
2) line 47 - what is the MCS scale? Many readers of this journal will not be familiar with this.
3) line 49 - same as above for 'S waves'. Please remember that this journal is about geoscience communication and has a broad readership across disciplines.
4) line 66 - you have deleted the definitions of these terms (PGV and PGA) used.
5) Section 3 - given the readership, please provide a simpler explanation of the methods, as well as the technical details.
6) line 86 - please provide the URL of the repository in the main text.

Many thanks for these edits which have improved the paper further. However, there remain some small issues.

- there are many uses of MCS and many of MSC throughout the paper - please ensure consistency.

- the description of S waves and P waves still does not explain what they are to a broad audience. Please describe what is meant assuming a reader has no technical knowledge of earthquakes.

- line 49 - 'can be change' -> 'can be different'

Am very happy to accept this manuscript!
Thanks,
Ed.