Looking good, but as many of the bricks in this set, the shape/font/size is wrong.
https://img.tradera.net/images/973/355816973_250d4629-5a3a-4bc8-8b66-dd796ba42e30.jpg

There are actually 3 versions of this brick with three different fonts.
Normal: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3005pt0#T=C&;C=1

Bold: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3005pt0b#T=C&;C=1

Serif: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3005pt0s#T=C

Soon I will send the updated version with the normal font.

Modified version using only ellipses.
Perhaps in the vertical strokes it may be necessary to add a small straight stroke and use two half ellipses at the ends.

Existing certification-votes were deleted.

as "0" and "O" are so difficult to differentiate visually, I would like to see
"(Oh)" and
"(Zero)"
added to the titles of 3005pt0.dat and 3005pto.dat

Fixed description.

Existing certification-votes were deleted.

As far as I can tell, this file is OK, but IMHO this set 3005pt0-pt9 should be obsoleted.
As it is made, it looks to be a mix of 2 fonts and sizes.

0, 1, 3, 4, 7 is correct in size, but some digits use an incorrect font.
2, 5, 6, 8, 9 belong in the set with serif font.

1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt0.dat
1 16 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt1.dat
1 16 40 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt2.dat
1 16 60 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt3.dat
1 16 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt4.dat
1 16 100 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt5.dat
1 16 120 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt6.dat
1 16 140 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt7.dat
1 16 160 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt8.dat
1 16 180 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3005pt9.dat

2 4 -10 5 -10 190 5 -10
2 4 -10 7 -10 190 7 -10
2 4 -10 17 -10 190 17 -10
2 4 -10 19 -10 190 19 -10

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/albums/72157616995236871
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ukIAAOSwS0tgBDT~/s-l1600.jpg

Or maybe we should keep the partnumbers an simply redesign the digits?

I don't think pattern correction justify obsoletization...

> There are actually 3 versions of this brick with three different fonts.
> Normal: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3005pt0#T=C&;C=1
> Bold: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3005pt0b#T=C&;C=1
> Serif: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3005pt0s#T=C

There must be a fourth style, as well. An initial "Normal" where the letters are much smaller and cover less of the brick surface. I recently acquired set 234 elements (by Samsonite), and the lettering is much smaller than that shown on Bricklink, or modeled in LDRAW.

Correction:
After I made the above comment, I got into a conversation with Gary Istok about the subject.

There are 6 different typefaces on LEGO 1x1 bricks over the years, one of them quite rare from the early years just in Scandinavia.

So, there's research to be done here, and probably a numbering system should be formed.

Gary showed me images of
Continental Europe 1958 (Serifed, thick), 1966 (Serifed, thin), and 1969 (the current "bold" look, mostly if not fully done with LCAD)

USA/Canada (sans-serif, small, center of brick face) and UK/Australia (sans-serif, covers most of the face of the brick, this set is mostly done with LCAD)

and

the rare 1957–58 typeface for set 1234 in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It looks to me a lot like the "Bold" set, but it's in the older darker blue