piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
*Martin* (2015-11-27 19:27:22+00:00): Hi GerdP

Untagged ways have no sense. They are highways. There is an proposal for highway=piste at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpiste. Please revert your changes. Thanks.
*Martin* (2015-11-27 19:28:00+00:00): (then we can change highway=ski to highway=piste)
GerdP (2015-11-27 20:00:36+00:00): done, please note that the ways are members of route=piste relations,
in my eyes there is no need to tag the ways with a similar information.
*Martin* (2015-11-27 20:11:41+00:00): One does not imply the second and so both taggings are important. Same is true for eg. highway=cycleway in route=bicycle relation or for hihway=bridleway in route=horse relation.
GerdP (2015-11-27 20:15:02+00:00): You are probably right. The ways should be tagged piste:type=* . This is an often used tag in opposite to highway=ski or highway=piste.
*Martin* (2015-11-28 08:22:18+00:00): piste:type=* is only an additional tag. It doesn't imply the highway.
highway=piste means that there is no highway when snow melts. It may then be just a regular meadow. highway=piste may exist even without membership in any route.
GerdP (2015-11-28 08:34:45+00:00): "highway=piste means that there is no highway when snow melts"
That's exactly why I don't like the tag.
If I got you right, you think that each part of a piste must also have a highway tag?
I see no reason for that, and most mappers in other areas don't think so as well.
*Martin* (2015-11-28 11:21:00+00:00): My intent was to have some data to be able to render maps like this: http://www.holidayinfo.sk/en/SkiLysa/Mapa/526909. Once there is some standard to tag single downhill area and name it then it can be retagged.
GerdP (2015-11-28 12:47:42+00:00): yes, looks nice. Do you know 
http://openskimap.org/ ?
Steed2005 (2015-11-30 14:17:15+00:00): Сейчас нет способа указать отдельно танцевальную школу. При этом данное место подходит под leisure=dance.
Тег amenity=training имеет proposed статус, ставить его некорректно при наличии подходящего поддерживаемого тега.
literan (2015-11-30 15:35:39+00:00): leisure=dance это место, куда можно прийти и (платно или бесплатно) потанцевать. Я могу сделать это в данном месте? Учиться мне не надо, я хочу просто сам потанцевать под музыку. На сайте я ничего подобного не вижу, но, возможно, у вас есть доп. информация. Если это так, то тег leisure=dance подходящий. Если не так - то неподходящий. К слову, amenity=training теперь поддерживается OsmAnd'ом.
literan (2015-11-30 15:37:50+00:00): Ну и не могу не сказать, что это не слишком корректно - не дожидаясь ответа на свои аргументы, отменять правку.
Steed2005 (2015-12-01 06:53:57+00:00): Прошу прощения, был напуган;) Ну и не пользовался раньше комментами, так что не знал, читает ли их кто-нибудь.
Судя по wiki, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:leisure%3Ddance (а также английской версии), данным тегом обозначаются все танцевальные залы, нет требования "сам прийти потанцевать". Так что, на мой взгляд, тег корректный в любом случае.
Также перед простановкой тегов я смотрел на https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19118/how-would-i-tag-a-dance-school.
Однако да, в данном месте проводятся и открытые танцевальные мероприятия без всякого обучения.
literan (2015-12-01 07:33:47+00:00): https://help.openstreetmap.org ведет на страницу от 2013 года, когда тегов amenity=training еще не существовало (да, и наличие одобренного пропозала по принципам проекта вовсе не обязательно для проставления тега). Что же касается определения тега, "This tag and its supplementary tags are used for purpose-built dance venues ("dance halls") and other venues which offer social dancing or participation dancing as a leisure activity on a regular basis." - танцевальные залы, предлагающие общественные танцы. Очевидно, что платные курсы чечетки или хип-хоп танца сюда отнестись не могут. Но, раз вы говорите, что открытые мероприятия там проводятся - значит можно поставить оба тега. Исправляю.
jacek_zwik (2015-12-04 20:25:03+00:00): Wiesz, jak trzy miesiące temu jechałem tą drogą (chciałem jechać) - to była zamknięta na amen - stały zapory, znaki, itd. Musiałem jechać przez Toszek. Potem się dowiedziałem jak to wygląda. Jak sytuacja teraz tam wygląda - nie wiem. Może zobaczę w styczniu.
podany link w pisie się wysypuje. tutaj inny link http://www.dziennikzachodni.pl/artykul/4860063,wielowies-pyskowice-remont-dw-901-zamkna-droge-na-rok,id,t.html
Pozdrawiam
maraf24 (2015-12-04 21:25:49+00:00): Informacje z artykułu wyglądały na spójne i logiczne.
Może tylko początkowy odcinek tej drogi jest zamknięty, a potem jest ruch wahadłowy? Poszukam jeszcze jakichś nowszych informacji.
maraf24 (2015-12-04 21:43:37+00:00): Wygląda na to, że jest ruch wahadłowy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB_bvTRX4ZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y_2v7ZtTuc
jacek_zwik (2015-12-05 19:52:55+00:00): Dzięki za info. Może w styczniu zobaczę co drogowcy tam poczynają.
jacek_zwik (2015-12-05 20:12:17+00:00): Zerknij na to:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/50.8734/18.3981
nie wiem, czy jest dostatecznie czytelne.
Opolska od wjazdu do Netto aż do granicy miasta jest zamknięta  dla ruchu. Dopuszczalny ruch jest tylko dla mieszkańców, autobusów i dojazd do Mrówki. Czas zakończenia remontu jak w tagu. Od mostu tymczasowego (od Stobrówki) - ruch wahadłowy (światła) do granicy miasta. Lepiej nie kombinować z przejazdem  - lepią mandaty nietubylcom. Sensowny objazd (tylko osobowe) - Lipowa, Starowiejska, Kluczborska. (na Częstochowę można jechać ze Starowiejskiej na Zdroje, Siedmiu Źródeł - wąska droga, Sosnowa, Gorzowska, Leśna i Częstochowska)
maraf24 (2015-12-05 20:55:25+00:00): destination=yes nie zadziała; to powinno być vehicle=destination. A mieszkańcy i tak wiedzą, czy moga jeździć
Może warto by tu zmienić kategorię tego remontowanego odcinka na residential? Odpowiadałoby to prawdzie i byłoby zauważalne na mapie.
jacek_zwik (2015-12-06 20:37:51+00:00): Dzięki, zmieniłem.
GerdP (2015-11-28 08:46:01+00:00): Hola! Welcome to OSM!
I've just noticed that you have created many roads with tags like 
highway=24 de Mayo
instead of 
highway=residential
name=24 de Mayo
I see that you use JOSM, so please try the "Validation Results" windows (Alt+Shift+V) to find the errors 
and try to fix them.
OK?
GerdP (2015-11-29 15:06:31+00:00): I've tried to fix the errors, please review
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35647478
and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35647778
dieterdreist (2023-02-22 18:22:08+00:00): Hi, habe gerade durch Zufall diese Relation entdeckt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5699948
das ist die Art von Multipolygon die m.E. die Karte unnötig kompliziert macht. Das ist keine zusammengehörige Fläche sondern einfach alle Fußgängerflächen in der Gegend. Man könnte besser ohne Relation die einzelnen Teile einzeln mappen und evtl. jeweils den Namen ergänzen, jedenfalls nicht so ein zusammenhängendes und ausgedehntes Konstrukt aus Gehwegen um Gebäude rum und anderen Flächen.

Gruß,
Martin

PS: Ja, ich weiß dass das schon 7 Jahre her ist, habe halt versucht, zur Wurzel vorzudringen ;-)
Владимир К (2015-12-09 06:47:18+00:00): Нужно переделывать
Tomas_J (2025-04-09 10:08:22+00:00): Ahoj, chodnik 383093587 uz bol zmapovany na ceste ako sidewalk left. Zmapoval si ho duplicitne. Prosim, oprav. Dik.
agranizo (2015-11-28 15:39:25+00:00): Hola estimado/a Mariee,

gracias por participar y aportar con el proyecto openstreetmap.  Com un recomendación te sugiero utilizar la la clasificación de vías par Ecuador (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ecuador/normalizacion_de_vias). Te sugeriría clasificar la vía Chillanes- Santa Rosa como 'primary' o 'secondary', unirla a la red vial existente. De esta manera, los datos serán estandarizados y útiles par futuros usuarios.

Saludos cordiales, 

agranizo
agranizo (2015-11-28 15:43:00+00:00): PD: Si necesitas ayuda con el cambio, con gusto te puedo apoyar.
GerdP (2015-11-30 20:12:20+00:00): Hi there!
Please review the invalid valies:
maxspeed:sign=95; 85
maxspeed=120; 110
on these ways:
way 383096172,way 175514380,way 383096171
Alecs01 (2015-11-27 18:30:28+00:00): Ciao Michele, benvenuto su OSM! fai attenzioni ai primi edits, sono quelli più critici! qui hai attaccato via Pisoni e via dei Giardini a via Solferino qui: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/114317241 e disegnato un'area con tag area=yes che non significa nulla (Via Monte Napoleone e Piazza San Babila sono già mappate), ora ho sistemanto. Se hai bisogno di aiuto chiedi pure, ciao buon mapping!
Shaun das Schaf (2022-06-03 10:12:29+00:00): Hi navig,

this change was a long time ago. But can you tell me why you changed the value of mtb:scale from "0" to "0 ST"?

There are quite a few of these (also from other users):
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1iZu

I would like to change all of these to their proper value (without the "ST"), but maybe there is a good reason for the "ST"?

Best regards
Shaun das Schaf
heilbron (2015-11-27 20:59:01+00:00): Ich finde es gut, dass Du neue Situation so schnell gemappt hast. Allerdings sind die ÖPNV-Bus-Relationen zerstört... Beim nächsten Mal könntest Du die Situation auf http://öpnvkarte.de vorher prüfen!!! Frohes Mappen!
heilbron (2015-11-30 22:01:39+00:00): Hallo nochmal! Du hast ja die Garmischer Straße in Nord-Süd-Richtung dupliziert, aber folgende Attribute nicht übernommen und das alte Fragment stehen lassen:
highway=secondary
lanes=2
maxspeed=40
motorroad=no
name=Garmischer Straße
oneway=yes
psv=yes
tmc=DE:22691/35331
Kannst Du das bitte prüfen?
PS: Richtiger wäre es, die alte Straße zu "verschieben", um dabei z.B. auch die Busrelation zu erhalten!....
VG! Stephen
OSM-helmut (2015-11-30 22:19:43+00:00): Vielen Dank für die Prüfungen und Problem Hinweise.
Ich habe die bereits als "construction" eingetragene endgültige Straßenführung quasi aktiv geschaltet und dann die Bauführung gelöscht. Dass ich dabei andere Verknüpfungen mit gelöscht habe und sie nicht bei der neuen Straßenführung berücksichtigt habe ist natürlich ein Versäumnis, dessen ich mir aber nicht bewusst war. Versuche es morgen zu korrigieren.
VG Helmut
GerdP (2015-11-30 10:12:13+00:00): Hi there!
Please explain this change. My understanding is that motorway_junction was correct.
mackerski (2015-11-30 10:33:51+00:00): Hi. It's not correct - the motorway_junction tag is only appropriate for an exit from a controlled-access road (doesn't have to be a motorway). Everything about the tag is intended to be interpreted by, say, navigation systems, as a routing decision point where the only action is to exit, usually to the left (or right, depending on country). Likewise, rendered maps interpret the tag as something that should be displayed prominently even when zoomed out aggressively. Keep in mind that, for most of these junctions, it is in any case impossible to apply the tag highway=motorway_junction, since highway=traffic_signals is already in place. A strong clue that this tag was never intended for a traffic situation of this kind.

The Dublin city through route scheme is a bit of a misfit anyway for digital maps and especially for machine navigation, since it's essentially intended to solve a navigation problem manually (signs on the ground and printed maps depicting the routes). It's not clear that a user of machine navigation should even care about those routes or junction points. But if it is appropriate for us to map them, we need to do so with some assumption of use case. How will software or map renderers want to use this? I adopted the highway=city_junction tag as a way of retaining the information captured by those mappers who did the existing work until we can work out what we actually want it for. But even that tag isn't satisfactory, because of the traffic signal conflict I mention above. In reality, I think the key to managing this properly is to define a route relation for the circular routes, with the junction nodes being included in the relation with a suitable role ("junction"?). A relation is surely the only way to go for a bunch of other reasons too. Even the ref tag causes us problems - when you have highway=traffic_signals, ref=J42, doesn't it seem like this should be the ref for the signals?

So this is where I'm coming from. I'm happy to discuss any valid use cases for this data, because without doing so, I fear we will not work out a useful tagging schema.
GerdP (2015-11-30 10:51:30+00:00): OK, I agree that motorway_junction is not
really good here. A few days ago there was a discussion about named junctions, 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Named-junctions-tt5859074.html
so I suggest to use highway=junction instead.
mackerski (2015-12-03 00:25:48+00:00): The bit problem with this idea is that most of these particular junctions already have a highway tag set, highway=traffic_signals. And what we realise, I think, is that the status of these nodes as junction points on this particular route is not their primary purpose, making it problematic to set a highway or ref tag specific to this one secondary purpose. This is why I'm convinced that a route relation is the correct way to solve this (though even this has challenges in how to tag, say, the junction refs).
GerdP (2015-12-03 10:23:36+00:00): I have no idea what these ref=* on the nodes mean.
I found 79 nodes with a ref that starts with
"J" in Dublin. Some have the same ref,
some numbers are missing, for example J78 and J80 exist, but J79 doesn't.
52 are highway=traffc_signals
14 are highway=city_junctilon
the others only have the ref tag.
SimpleLuke (2015-12-16 14:58:01+00:00): 同学你好 欢迎加入OpenStreetMap 通过你的这个编辑发现你对OSM的功能和用法的理解还不是很正确 这是一个开放编辑的公共地图 请你不要在地图上标注非通用的个人信息 谢谢
eggie (2018-03-19 10:11:14+00:00): Nog nooit een welkomstmail ontvangen zie ik.. daarom. alsnog Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
simone (2015-11-27 21:06:27+00:00): ho sistemato il landuse non corretto
Сергій Дубик (2015-11-28 22:04:35+00:00): Привіт! 
Адм. межа с. Біла https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/235278607 не повинна містити тег стежки (highway=path), приберіть його. Зазвичай шляхи не проходять по ділянках адм. межі, хіба про це зазначено офіційно.
geow (2016-01-09 16:09:15+00:00): Hallo chrsmsk,

ich habe das Tagging beim Wartsteinband angepasst, Begründung, siehe CS-Kommentar:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390403898

Ich hoffe die Einstufung als via_ferrata_scale=1 (=B) findet auch deine Zustimmung.

VG
geow

PS: Ich habe auch einige Hütten auf der Reiteralm rechtwinklig gemacht, auch wenn sie in Bing machmal windschief erscheinen. Du kannst  ein Gebäude in iD leicht rechtwinklig machen, indem du das Gebäude auswählst und S (für Square) drückst.
chrsmsk (2016-01-10 12:24:12+00:00): Ja, ist ein leichter Klettersteig, B würd ich auch meinen...
geow (2016-01-11 07:39:03+00:00): Danke!
SomeoneElse (2015-11-27 21:17:21+00:00): FWIW I'm not entirely convinced by the "separate footpath" to the north, but that's by a local so I've left it :)
SomeoneElse (2015-11-30 17:27:03+00:00): I'm surprised that you were able to resolve http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39326398/history as oneway=no without splitting into two again?
GerdP (2015-11-30 17:42:30+00:00): Well, splitting it again also seemed not plausible regarding oneway. It would probably be better to remove the tag?
SomeoneElse (2015-11-30 17:46:09+00:00): "no;yes" is usually the result of an unintended way merge, so you can usually figure out which ways were merged to create the invalid tag.

I'd also always explain to the person who did the merge what went wrong, so that they won't do it again.

Here just choosing "no" or "yes" without investigating means that the data is just as wrong as it was before but that that error is no longer highlighted by a QA site, which it was before.
GerdP (2015-11-30 17:56:31+00:00): You are right, I also wonder why I've changed more than one way, that wasn't intended. I'll revert the change because I'm
not sure what I did here.
GerdP (2015-12-01 08:30:37+00:00): Thanks for the hint. I am pretty sure now that the change was not intended.
I think I first wanted to change that road to oneway=no, was not sure and selected the next way with an unusual oneway tag without removing the changed way from JOSM.
Is there a way that JOSM warns when producing changesets with large bboxes?
SomeoneElse (2015-12-02 19:34:11+00:00): Re "Is there a way that JOSM warns when producing changesets with large bboxes?"  I'm not aware of one, but I've not looked either.  If there is one I'm sure that people on the help site or on one of the main lists (or in the German forum) will know.
Glassman (2021-11-23 01:14:32+00:00): This is an old one - You initially added BR-0611  as a cycleway. Do you have any recollection of adding this? Seems like it should either be a path or a track.
Natfoot (2021-11-23 20:29:53+00:00): These must be mountain bike trails not used for pedestrians. Otherwise I can't think of why I would have used this tag.
DUGA (2021-04-28 14:24:03+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35619575#map=17/39.72245/-75.74204

Please do not change any road to track without any consideration.
woodpeck_repair (2015-11-28 06:26:47+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 35471005, 35468164, 35469693, 35469342, 35463017, 35443341, 35464384, 35469067, 35468317, 35463350, 35447541, 35444434, 35464825, 35448126, 35445312, 35465776, 35471051, 35442544.
GerdP (2015-12-04 08:11:53+00:00): ¡Hola!
Por favor revise mis cambios:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35741383
OK?
simone_girardelli (2015-12-06 13:59:05+00:00): Ciao, ho visto che hai effettuato delle modifiche in zona tramite i tools dedicati di OSM.

Ti chiedo un chiarimento sul perchè il comune di Villa, lo hai rinominato in Villa di Strigno, aggiungendo un nodo con tag place tra l'altro, in quanto non è corretto, e tale comune sarebbe unificato come area amministrativa ad Agnedo, ma per la viabilità sono due abitati distinti, mentre per la amministrazione provinciale il comune di Villa-Agnedo è comune unico.

Per cui ti pregherei di riportare il nome allo stato originario, e per i commenti al changeset, cerca di essere più chiaro altrimenti non si capisce, questo per mantenere uno storico.
Poi vorrei chiederti chiarimenti sul tag is_in:municipality, per che motivo l'hai messo?

Scusa la disamina, però, se non conosci bene il posto, non effettuare cambiamenti così importanti, rischi di rendere inutile il lavoro di altri.

Grazie per la pazienza. :)
simone_girardelli (2015-12-06 14:26:16+00:00): In aggiunta perchè mi è venuto in mente adesso, il tag place in questo caso non serve a nulla, andrebbe cancellato, ma le cancellazioni "fanno male al database", per cui, unisci il nodo a qualche altro nodo e togli i tag al suo interno, cosicchè "svuotandosi", diventa  un nodo "normale".

Ciao di nuovo e scusa il modo.
simone_girardelli (2015-12-06 14:30:31+00:00): Lascia perdere il secondo commento, sto facendo confusione io, basta solo che lo rinomini.

Scusa ancora.
GFS (2015-12-15 11:49:23+00:00): A mio avviso è corretto mantenere la distinzione fra la denominazione del comune ("Villa Agnedo"), e quella dei centri abitati che lo compongono, ovvero "Villa" e "Agnedo".
Il 1° gennaio 2016 il comune di Villa Agnedo cesserà di esistere, dando origine, insieme a Strigno e Spera, al nuovo ente di Castel Ivano, curiosamente non comprendente il noto castello situato a Ivano-Fracena.
simone_girardelli (2015-12-15 21:34:22+00:00): Grazie per aver risposto, per quel che riguarda i confini amministrativi, se ci sarà il castello o no, vedremo il prossimo anno, sinceramente anche se sono della zona, conosco poco l'espletazione dei confini amministrativi che si verranno a creare (o fondere).
Tra l'altro sul sito del nuovo comune, curiosando, ho visto pure una mancata attribuzione, che ora vado a formalizzare.
Quanto al nome dei comuni attuali, quelli resteranno, solo diverranno, credo, "rioni" amministrativi, almeno da quanto ho capito.
Grazie ancora per la dritta.
GerdP (2015-11-30 09:19:32+00:00): Hi there!
I've noticed this change because of the unusual 
highway=parking aisle 
Please review my change:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35661401
agranizo (2015-11-28 15:25:49+00:00): Hola estimado alex_agua,

gracias por participar en openstreetmap. En tus actualizaciones he notado que calsifcas las calles como 'primary' y 'secondary'. Sin embargo, para las calles de una ciudad o poblado, es mejor utilizar 'residential'.  Como otra sugerencia, te recomendaría no unir los nodos de las calles con los nodos de edificios.

Saludos,

agranizo
trigpoint (2015-11-28 13:15:06+00:00): For reference to previous discussion on this issue see http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/474399

I am really not convinced by this change, the property boundaries match bing pretty well, I would call that pretty verifiable. The distinction between wall and fence is minor, most of the houses in this area look to be Victorian terraces, so barrier=wall is the most likely. One thing you can guarantee is that there are barriers.

We do no have lots in the UK. that is an American term.

I do not get you comment re Cadestra, that if not relevant in the UK. The only way to collect address data is to walk/cycle and record what you see. 

My view is that this change should be reverted, There are probably overlapping barriers here, but that can be fixed and the buildings traced. A green mass is far less meaningful, and less likely to inspire a local mapper. than the previously mapped walls.
mboeringa (2015-11-28 19:23:36+00:00): Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding: I did not merge any of the originally digitized property boundaries, so anyone getting in to edit the data, will see all of the original boundaries in its editor. Nor did I remove any other information than the barrier=wall tag, and I changed the not documented "garden=residential" in the well documented "leisure=garden". I have the feeling the undocumented "garden=residential" was just added to not make the area green...

Anyway, you are free to revert of course, shouldn't be any problem since these aren't frequently edited features.
mcdlee (2015-12-03 09:45:26+00:00): 遇到不確定的可以善用 fixme tag

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fixme
qugeb (2024-12-26 13:53:38+00:00): Hi,

da du hier die Addressen eingetragen hast, wollte ich dich auf die Hinweise hier aufmerksam machen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35622530#map=19/50.159348/8.514761&layers=N
Allem Anschein nach sind die Hausnummern 2-8 verkehrt herum gemappt. Könntest du dir das bitte ansehen?
Vielen Dank schonmal im Vorrraus.
kaltuna (2024-12-26 14:47:38+00:00): Hallo,

der Anschein stellt sich auch mir dar, wenn man die Hessen ALKIS-Hintergrunddaten betrachtet. Dort bestätigen sich die Angaben der Hinweismarker.

Allerdings hat der Mapper vor mir die Hausnummern kartiert. Ich war zuletzt nur mit kleinen Korrekturen dran (Schwalbach ->> Schwalbach am Taunus und addr:country=de)

Ich habe die Hausnummern jetzt schnell umgedreht.

Viele Grüße !
woodpeck_repair (2015-11-29 17:09:40+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 34932684, 35384352, 35378818, 35059732, 35216580, 35132812, 35379223, 34906502, 34936504, 35128979, 35039388, 34757979, 34932481, 34951156, 35044207, 35042280, 35226895, 35064446, 34757764, 35133557, 35105090, 35058150, 34906823, 35263369, 34759315, 35381467, 34781025, 35380393, 35129951, 34931931, 34951324, 35268748, 35063513, 35193734, 35355478, 34954403, 34935644, 35265691, 34932185, 34951828, 35226496, 34907015, 34935135, 35134621, 35221301, 35107322, 35222750, 35265279, 34906590, 35199168, 35107814, 35200950, 35359094, 35245961, 35218170, 34757785, 34953344, 35245088, 35199874, 35223921, 35250800, 34952881, 35105581, 35244197, 35221836, 34760899, 34932271, 35383469, 35224996, 35083203, 34934569, 34905278, 35197333, 35250482, 34758817, 35133145, 35362057, 35196622, 35267533, 35354080, 35218779, 35130518, 35222393, 34932847, 35040056, 35201742, 35104545, 35381178, 34934808, 35362697, 34930968, 34952551, 35036848, 35360065, 34781310, 35063053, 35197990, 35219734, 35352317, 35241704, 34781215, 35040987, 35383846, 34934206, 35351210, 34763360, 35242181, 35083541, 34764320, 35245506.