The syntax of using a list of housenumbers separated by commas is valid. I often use that approach when adding addresses from my phone, but usually move the addresses of buildings with multiple addresses to individual nodes when I get home, because it seems to be the convention in Vancouver, looks cleaner, and is necessary when buildings have addresses on different streets (corner lots). I can understand other people not liking the comma separated list. In this case I must have just forgotten to move the addresses to nodes when I got home.

But two approaches were taken to get rid of the comma separated lists here, and both are worse than a comma separated list. 

One building had the four addresses (52 to 58) replaced with two specific addresses, and an interpolated way between them. This provides less information than having all addresses listed, and while not wrong, is less good. 

Two buildings (building with addresses 60 to 68, and with 76/78)  were remapped as multiple buildings, one for each address. This is wrong. Buildings should not be divided into multiple buildings unless they are physically separate structures in reality.  An separate address is not enough to make it a separate building. 

I've fixed these edits, and done so by moving the addresses of buildings with multiple addresses to individual nodes. I've returned the two addresses that had been deleted.  Hopefully this should make everyone happy.