
** We are resubmitting our article "Pan-STARRS Photometric and
   Astrometric Calibration" after addressing suggestions raised by the
   referee.  We thank the referee for detailed comments and
   suggestions.  Below are our responses to the referee's suggestions.
   In the response below, our responses are preceeded by "**".
   Modified portions of the article text are highlighted with boldface
   type. 

Reviewer's Comments:

The paper "Pan-STARRS Photometric and Astrometric Calibration" by
Magnier et al. describes the calibration of a major modern sky survey.
The paper is well written and provides sufficient technical detail to not
only for the reader to understand what was done, but also to inform
future surveys. Given this legacy aspect, my only major comment is
that it would be prudent to discuss the performance of Pan-STARRS
calibration in comparison to other major optical surveys, such as SDSS,
DES and HSC surveys. Such a discussion would illuminate all your
advances and provide direction for future work. My other, much more
minor comments are listed below.

** We agree with this suggestion and have substantially extended the
   Conclusion section to put this article in the context of other
   recent and future surveys.

- Abstract: it would be good to provide quantitative summary of photometric
and astrometric performance (such as values listed in fig. 4 caption)

** we added this to the abstract.

- after eqs. 5 and 6: I was puzzled why there was no source color
dependence in these equations; you may want to clarify that early

** clarification added to the end of section 3.3

- page 5: S in LSD, S stands for "Survey", not "Scale"

** fixed

- page 8, left column, 1st paragraph: you may want to state that your
fundamental assumption is that the chemical and thermodynamical
state of the atmosphere is constant throughout a night

** clarification added

- page 8, left column, 3rd paragraph: what does word "reliability" mean
in this context? It's certainly not standard statistical usage.

** This paragraph was reworded to describe the reliablity of the
   Schlafly et al results more clearly.

- page 8, left column, last paragraph: this result (20-35 mmag) is
discrepant by a factor of ~3 compared to Schlafly et al. results;
please comment and clarify

** The Schlafly et al results do not constrain the absolute zero
   points, relying on a tie via SDSS.  The Scolnic et al analysis
   determines the absolute zero points directly.   This has been
   explained at the end of Section 5.1.
   

- page 9, right column, 2nd paragraph: this clipping procedure sounds
like an ad hoc hocus pocus; can you provide at least some statistical
justification (e.g. what is the distribution model you had in your mind)?
perhaps even more ad hoc procedure is assigning weights of 10x their
default; why 10 and not 5, or 50, or?

** Text has been added to 5.3 (p. 10) to explain the outlier
   rejection process and rationale.

- similarly to the above comments; what statistical outlier model are eqs.
17 and 18 supposed to model/address?

** Clarification has been added to the text in section 5.4.2 to
   explain the outliers.

- comment about proper motions after introducing eqs. 21-24 is not
entirely correct because a lot of your observations are far from the
galactic plane and thus are sensitive to the asymmetric drift effects
for disk stars

** This is a good point.  We have updated the text in section 6.2 to
   address this concern.

- last paragraph in section 6.2: so how much improvement did you get
from eqs. 21-24?

** The improvement is noted now in section 6.2.

