piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2025-11-10 22:06:41+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisBot (2025-11-10 22:06:42+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Travel agency in Elgin Texas"
NeisReview (2025-11-18 14:17:10+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/174818395
Jrachi (2025-11-14 19:39:44+00:00): Ciao.
È stranissimo che una via abbia un nome composto.
Dove hai preso l'informazione?

Ivo
ALFIOCIABA (2025-11-14 21:34:32+00:00): Buonasera, ho trascritto semplicemente quello che è riportato sui cartelli stradale della via sul bivio della strada SP3 Chiantigiana. Probabilmente c'è un errore nella segnaletica. Se è così nessun problema, si modifica
あじさか (2025-11-11 11:11:25+00:00): Thanks for the quick response.
txemt (2025-11-20 21:21:33+00:00): Is FDot hiring for the position you have? I'd be interested.
Branko Kokanovic (2025-11-12 23:11:15+00:00): Zdravo, dobar dan Dragane.

Opet su Vam sve izmene izbrisane. To što radite nije po pravilima naše zajednice. Molimo Vas da odgovorite na ovu diskusiju i da probamo da nađemo zajednički jezik jer ćete opet biti blokirani. Ako Vam je lakše, tu smo na Telegram kanalu https://t.me/osm_sr ili otvorite temu na našem forumu https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/rs/64. Samo nemojte više raditi iste izmene, opet će biti izbrisane. Hvala unapred!
Sandal man (2025-12-10 19:39:56+00:00): Hola, compañero mapeador, ¿podrías echar un vistazo a algunas de las carreteras sin etiquetas en este conjunto de cambios?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1449508839#map=19/41.165978/1.247016
Y mas
Saludos, Sandalman
streckenkundler (2025-11-11 18:04:50+00:00): Hei, du hast hier für den Schulweg ein oneway=yes gesetzt. Das Schild sehe ich auch bei Mapillary, da hier auch eine Fahrradroute erfasst ist, ist nun die Folge, daß die Radroute 75-77 nicht mehr bidirektional routbar ist... 

https://www.knooppuntnet.nl/en/analysis/route/7797699

Wie ist denn die restliche Beschilderung? Kannst du das sagen?

Danke für die Hilfe,

streckenkundler
bwbuz (2025-11-11 18:10:53+00:00): Moin, am Südende steht der bekannte Pfeil und am Ende das runde rote mit dem weißen Balken...leider alles ohne ein Zusatzschild...das müsste aber da sein, damit wir als Radfahrer in Gegenrichtung fahren dürfen.
bwbuz (2025-11-11 18:11:50+00:00): Ggf. müsste hier die Gemeinde nachbessern...?
bwbuz (2025-11-11 18:14:36+00:00): P.S.: An der Einmündung Alte Bahnhofstr. steht zudem ein Schild Sackgasse
bwbuz (2025-11-11 18:27:57+00:00): Ich hab gerade nochmal meine MaxPro-Aufnahme angesehen....auf Höhe der Einmündung Schulweg steht auf der gegenüberliegenden Seite von der Alten Bahnhofstr. der Pfahl mit den zwei grün-weißen Radweg-Schildern...die Schilder weisen in den Schulweg bzw. aus diesem kommend nach Norden.
streckenkundler (2025-11-11 20:25:27+00:00): Ahhh... jetzt kann ich Bild https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=133189328826717 interpretieren... Der Pfahl mit den Schildern direkt rechts neben dem schwarzen Auto...

Fazit für betreffenden Abschnitt: oneway=yes + oneway:bicycle=no

Der Landkreis Prignitz (dessen Route es ist) legt diese auch da lang... 
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/4605c26759e84658844c53ec7ef6d6d9?draft=true#widget_6=active_datasource_id:dataSource_2,center:1333143.961076721%2C7040686.6679858%2C102100,scale:14468.857295429207,level:-1,rotation:0,viewpoint:%7B%22rotation%22%3A0%2C%22scale%22%3A14468.857295429207%2C%22targetGeometry%22%3A%7B%22spatialReference%22%3A%7B%22latestWkid%22%3A3857%2C%22wkid%22%3A102100%7D%2C%22x%22%3A1333143.961076721%2C%22y%22%3A7040686.6679858%7D%7D

ggf. kann ich nachfragen, ich habe Kontakte...

Grüße,

Sven
bwbuz (2025-11-11 20:38:13+00:00): Jo...nur sollten die Einbahnschilder ergänzt werden...wozu gibt es Zusatzschilder schließlich. Dann kommt auch bei den Radlern kein ungutes Gefühl auf und Autofahrer wissen, dass ihnen hier Radfahrer entgegenkommen können.

Schönen Gruß
Werner
streckenkundler (2025-11-11 21:22:21+00:00): Hei,
ich werde morgen mal den Landkreis Prignitz anfunken... =User https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Landkreis%20Prignitz

Da die Route in dem Abschnitt aber anderes Bundesland und auch anderer Landkreis ist... weiß ich noch nicht...

Sven
bwbuz (2025-11-11 21:40:09+00:00): ;-)
Langlaeufer (2025-11-16 09:58:33+00:00): Hallo KnuFloh001
hat sich die Beschilderung des Fußweges an der Zepernicker Chaussee wirklich geändert. Hier war noch im Sommer Gehweg Radverkehr frei (Zn 239+1022-10) beschildert. Entsprechend war der Weg als Fußweg mit bicycle=yes attributiert.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren

Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174486774
LordGarySugar (2025-11-10 23:26:08+00:00): I got rate limited if anything is broken (it definitely is) the final changeset is getting uploaded in 30 minutes
joost schouppe (2025-11-21 09:10:31+00:00): Hier heb je per ongeluk de highway tag verwijderd: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59826214
Opgepikt dankzij Road Completion, zie https://maproulette.org/challenge/24090
VLD549 (2025-11-17 15:32:21+00:00): Hi, I was asked to verify name changes. I know in Dutch we should capitalize 'De', but aren't we supposed to follow the way of writing as per BAG for example, in this case?
BAG and other sites write it as 'de'.

Thank you for your contributions.
Laudna (2025-11-17 16:06:54+00:00): Hi, thanks for your question! That's interesting that the BAG has de, I based this change on the streetsign, I figured the streetsign would be correct, but maybe not?
carciofo (2026-07-20 13:26:43+00:00): Hi, Bing is quite outdated in this area. Esri is better and Palm Beach County has its own aerial photography every year. I've updated the lanes to the latest imagery (2026). Thanks.
Kinsio (2025-11-14 07:46:02+00:00): Hi AdrenoBear! Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your contributions so far. I did notice that the Flock camera node you added in this changeset is a bit strangely placed in the middle of the street. Don't worry, though, this is not complicated to fix. If you're comfortable giving the in-browser OpenStreetMap editor on OSM.org, iD, a try, you can fix it by just dragging the node over to where it's supposed to be. (You can read about iD on the OpenStreetMap Wiki at <https://osm.wiki/iD>.) If not, we could at least get it out of the middle of the road and refine it later if you can describe where the camera is (e.g., is it on the west side or the east side of the road?), and worst case, I am a Beaumont local and I'll be down to Baptist eventually to pick up some prescriptions, so I can try to remember to pin down a better location then.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174487616
Kinsio (2025-12-09 22:53:23+00:00): For the record: since I was at Baptist today I went ahead and adjusted the positions and directions of the Flock cameras in changeset #175736164, so no need to worry about that anymore.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174487616
AdrenoBear (2025-12-17 15:38:32+00:00): Thank you for adjusting the camera. I meant to redo the placement of this one and add one or two more in the area I've saw, but things got a little more hectic than I expected. And now 10 new one are going up in Vidor soon, so I'll have my hands full finding all of those because city council is keeping locations close to the vest.
Kinsio (2025-12-17 19:23:05+00:00): No worries, I know how that goes. Big part of why my OSM and Wikipedia contributions end up being sporadic as well. Would you like to collaborate on mapping these out? This is getting a little out of scope of the changeset discussion but feel free to send me a message if so. I believe we've got at least a couple of other people adding these locally too (though I haven't tried to reach out yet), so it'd be nice to get us all on the same page.
gscholz (2025-12-02 07:53:51+00:00): Hi Giovanni,
this changeset has destroyed the boundary relation of "Matese":

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=14.47306&lat=41.39726&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

Especially way 1095121051 is (again) affected here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1095121051/history

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
AgusQui (2025-11-15 05:03:58+00:00): Por favor la proxima vez no eliminar la relación, aun no se sabe si el cambio es permanente y revertir una relación eliminada es muy trabajoso. Lo mejor es cambiar el etiquetado a disused:route.
NeisBot (2025-11-11 00:36:44+00:00): Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Added houses"
NeisBot (2025-11-11 00:36:44+00:00): Hi a1bh, welcome to the OSM projekt and thanks for your contribution!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish
QuiLe (2025-11-11 02:56:19+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM! If a road is not public, please use the tag access=private, do not delete ways or nodes. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_private_information
QuiLe (2025-11-11 03:00:39+00:00): Sorry I had linked the wrong link.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
QuiLe (2025-11-11 03:00:53+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
Omnific (2025-11-11 03:04:11+00:00): Changeset reverted.
pwbriggs (2025-11-13 00:35:13+00:00): Thanks QuiLe and Omnific. I've updated the access tags instead. Thank you for helping make the map more accurate, Jackson, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
NeisBot (2025-11-11 01:00:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisBot (2025-11-11 01:00:42+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Law office of Benson & Bingham Reno"
NeisReview (2025-11-18 14:16:38+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/174818380
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 05:51:53+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised Editing & import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176337780
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 06:02:14+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised Editing & import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176338061
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 06:02:15+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised Editing & import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176338061
German C (2025-12-03 13:41:21+00:00): Hola Lolj, no debes eliminar el centro comercial https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1427821649 y poner uno nuevo https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1449552892 ya que se debe mantener el historial de cambios https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Mantener_el_historial, lo que se debe hacer es modificar el existente mejorando la geometría, no debes usar abreviaturas https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Abreviaturas_(no_hacer_esto)
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 06:02:16+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised Editing & import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176338061
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 06:02:17+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised Editing & import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176338061
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 06:02:18+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised Editing & import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176338061
woodpeck (2025-11-11 08:42:06+00:00): This changeset has added a triangular and nonsensical landuse on top of an already existing landuse. If this was done manually, what were you thinking? If this was done by software, the software clearly is buggy.
Luul Solutions (2025-11-12 14:16:09+00:00): We used a system called Geo-Addressing-System that we developed ourselves. Sorry we contributed this. We are going to investigate this now.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 06:02:19+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised Editing & import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176338061
Fizzie-DWG (2025-11-11 04:21:05+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18948
felipeeugenio (2025-11-11 12:11:06+00:00): Hola. Esos caminos no son túneles claramente, por favor entrar al chat de la comunidad para resolver dudas. Gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174489655
felipeeugenio (2025-11-11 12:12:03+00:00): Además es inverosímil que la emfermería sea todo ese edificio. Lo mismo con el gimnasio. Por favor tomar contacto para aclarar dudas. gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174489655
NeisBot (2025-11-11 03:16:05+00:00): Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Added Buddhist places of worship, updated building details"
NeisBot (2025-11-11 03:16:05+00:00): Hi 1of1, welcome to the OSM projekt and thanks for your contribution!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish
Frans S (2025-12-02 14:51:24+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
About buildings with multiple floors, Sidewalls visible
See this video.
For buildings with a few floors, start watching from position 1 minute. 
https://youtu.be/Tpi-BTMVo1M

Best regards
felipeeugenio (2025-11-11 10:32:30+00:00): Hello. admin_level is for boundaries. I don´t what office is this, but it is an office, not an andministrative boundary.

regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174490597
Erlen Dur (2025-11-11 13:10:40+00:00): I always check with the wiki, what tags I can use and for office=government it says under useful combinations, admin_level=* - to indicate the administrative level (national, provincial, etc).
Which I think makes totally sense to also give governmental institutions a tag, describing on which level they work. 
Therefore I am going to leave it like I tagged it
felipeeugenio (2025-11-11 14:58:18+00:00): really. It says nothing in the admin_level entry. but Ok. the wiki is sometimes like that.

regards
eggie (2025-11-11 06:54:31+00:00): Gebuik old_name= voor de voirgaande naam.

Mvg..
eggie
eggie (2025-11-11 08:01:29+00:00): old name toegevoegd
eggie (2025-11-11 06:53:28+00:00): Hoi..

Voor de 'oude' naam kun je old_name= bijtaggen.
Die hoort dus niet als aanvulling in name=...
Mvg..
eggie
eggie (2025-11-11 08:00:16+00:00): Als bovenstaand aangepast
BCNorwich (2025-11-12 08:14:30+00:00): Hi, I've removed the highway Way: Road (1449568860) because it duplicates an existing highway. Please make any amendments/corrections to the existing feature, not merely map over it.

Regards Bernard.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-11-11 04:30:00+00:00): Hello, & welcome to OSM! Nice work with your initial start at mapping! There's nothing "wrong" with what you've done, but you don't have to map only 1 building per Changeset! It may be easier for you to you map say all the buildings in one street or block, then save them in one go, rather than individually. Keep having fun, & if you have any questions, please ask! Thanks!
Glassman (2025-11-11 22:19:13+00:00): That is a strange place for a flock device. Can you review and make sure it is located correctly?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174492034
MLynnMich (2025-11-12 03:47:00+00:00): Home depot has them located at roughly the 4 corners of their property. These are accurate,  I surveyed and took pictures of the 4 cameras myself.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174492034
Glassman (2025-11-12 17:54:21+00:00): Thanks for getting back to me.
MLynnMich (2025-11-12 19:08:37+00:00): You're welcome. I did notice on one version of the map it showed the camera in the trees so I did adjust it closer  to the building but essentially it is on the border of Home Depot's property line.
hahae (2025-12-02 01:28:45+00:00): 鉴于您迟迟不回复我（繁体中文和不存在的村庄问题），我现在会把您添加的一部分节点删除掉
nicerain (2025-12-04 02:09:08+00:00): 好，我打算最近，補全一些沒有繁體中文的節點
sykul (2025-11-11 10:01:03+00:00): Please split up your edits into each geographical area, otherwise half of the world gets covered with the bounding box. Thanks.
dmjab13 (2025-11-11 21:25:05+00:00): jeezus man
Yushclay (2025-11-12 03:48:35+00:00): Non-highway CA-56 is trunk road per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines. Don't think it's too authoritative, but I'll reverse a little bit of your downgrade back to trunk as a local. You had the right idea for CA-56 east of Shoal Creek Dr.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-11-13 02:40:05+00:00): Shoal Creek Drive is a random residential street, not a trunk road or motorway. Why that one in particular? Also, roads in OSM are (for the most part) classified based on their importance in the road network.
Yushclay (2025-11-13 06:38:06+00:00): I'm just letting that stop there since that's the first traffic light after Rancho Carmel Dr. I'd say my OSM editor philosophy leans towards what matches what's been built as opposed to importance when it comes to road stubs so that the symbology on the map matches the driver expectation on the ground, so I feel it's should be fine to let it look awkward. Between Shoal Creek and Pomerado Rd is a flex between trunk and primary on the ground, but definitely not Twin Peaks Rd like we saw in the original. But I can agree that it's not as important to the network, just that the symbology doesn't match with what's on the ground. Network importance would matter to me after Shoal Creek Dr.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-11-14 19:34:06+00:00): You say that Shoal Creek Drive is the first at-grade intersection of CA 56? Highway=trunk has nothing to do with that whatsoever. That can be indicated with either the combination expressway=yes and access_control=full or highway=motorway.
NeisBot (2025-11-11 05:19:44+00:00): Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Updated shop with payment methods, including Mastercard, Visa, cash, and card options, and added accessibility and building details"
NeisBot (2025-11-11 05:19:44+00:00): Hi Sleuthy_Sloth, welcome to the OSM projekt and thanks for your contribution!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment #NoComment
BCNorwich (2025-11-12 08:09:25+00:00): Hi, I've removed several sections of duplicated highways which could have caused disruption to routing.
Glassman (2025-11-11 22:20:59+00:00): Why is this road tagged as motor_vehicle=no?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174493214
Sleuthy_Sloth (2025-11-11 22:57:07+00:00): The gate there remains closed at all times except for emergencies.
Glassman (2025-11-11 23:35:07+00:00): In that case, use access=private + emergency=yes. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency
Aim311_ (2025-11-16 00:33:42+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339817452/history
dodałeś surface=dirt do istniejącego tracktype=grade2
Serio? Nawierzchnia dirt wyklucza grade2.
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-24 22:43:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186321586 where the changeset comment is: revert airport edits by user olehz - Solomon Islands
dypa (2025-12-05 07:55:29+00:00): При указании размеченных не регулируемых пешеходных переходов нельзя использовать тег crossing=zebra, см https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:crossing=zebra

Пожалуйста при внесении следующих правок используйте теги (Размеченный (нерегулируемый) пешеходный переход)
crossing=uncontrolled
crossing:markings=zebra

Заранее спасибо!
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-24 22:44:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186321625 where the changeset comment is: revert airport edits by user olehz - Ukraine
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-24 22:41:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186321497 where the changeset comment is: revert airport edits by user olehz - Libya
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-24 22:26:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186320984 where the changeset comment is: revert airport edits by user olehz - Argentina
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-24 22:39:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186321398 where the changeset comment is: revert airport edits by user olehz - China
dmjab13 (2025-11-11 21:24:06+00:00): thanks
Swihail (2025-11-12 08:59:59+00:00): Thank you for the message. I’m glad I could help. Happy mapping!
tomhukins (2025-12-03 17:48:24+00:00): Your changeset comment should describe the details of the changes you made, not describe who you are or any other corporate blurb:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please encourage your managers at Uber to help mappers like you write more useful changeset comments.

Are you sure the two new roads you added are best described as service roads and not residential roads?

Aerial photography suggests the existing footpath you modified no longer follows the mapped route due to a construction site that incorporates the roads you added.
RahilPasha (2025-12-04 00:41:23+00:00): Apologies for the mistake I committed. Thank you for the valuable feedback. I look forward to your suggestion/feedback in the future as well. Thank you.
tomhukins (2025-12-07 14:15:22+00:00): I have added a note about this area to https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5082201 for someone who cares about the quality of the map to investigate.
ColbyTheWorldTraveler (2026-02-24 20:03:30+00:00): Is this the official account for First Call Jewl? lol. Looks good!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174496730