I think it appears as:

77 Hawk House
Baynhams Drive
[Wolvercote]
OXFORD

(But the number is not a flat number, it follows the street numbers.)

Addr:interpolation on a single object is very much acceptable, and documented on the wiki, although there is no consensus.

osm.wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers
> Specify the range (e.g. 10-95). Note that there is a risk of ambiguity between two meanings:
When such a range is officially used for the entire house, this is the preferred method. In this case 10-95 is simply a label like any other. In this and other cases, house numbers officially contain a dash and are not meant to be treated as special.
When such a range is meant to be interpreted as a list of addresses, use addr:interpolation=* (described below) to emphasise this. Some mappers will add a short "virtual" way which allows them to put addresses 10 and 95 on separate nodes as normal. Some mappers will specify the range 10-95 on a single object, where the addition of the addr:interpolation=* tag disambiguates it from the "simply a label" meaning, specifying that it is indeed to be treated as a range. Both approaches are used in practice and there is little consensus.
Note that in some cases building or building complex has single address such as 3-5 that only looks like a housenumber range. As usual, do not convert such data blindly, without a verification.

Personally, I think it works very well and I have been using it extensively in Oxford.
It distinguishes it from other cases and it is well received for example by the main search engine on openstreetmap.org. Without the interpolation on the single object, I think it does not return addresses in the range. With it, it does. The rendering is great, and the human interpretation is also very clear: it specifies what the X-Y range means.

Mapping individual entrances certainly provides more detail, but the result is the same: a range with dash and interpolation tag on a single object.

All best.

The previous solution was correct. The name is used in official addresses.

Moreover, the current interpolation suggests that numbers are in between, on the line, like a terrace, which is not accurate for flats.

I would suggest restoring the previous tags to the overall buildings.

Sorry, disregard everything I said. There was indeed a duplicate, in addition to the overlap of the overall area and the sub-areas!

I reverted it.

Now I'll try to see if it can be mapped with more precision.

Hi. This wasn't a duplicate. The node refers to a specific sub-element of the overall area (with boundaries that are not well defined, I presume).

Hi,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edit!

Just a couple of notes:

- This changeset contains an edit to Pawłosiow in Poland, and edits in Oxford. If you meant to edit Pawłosiow, it is better to do it in a separate changeset, to keep it small and local.
(See: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets)

- The 'name' should be a proper name, not a description. A lot of the names you assigned to natural and school elements in Blackbird Leys seem only descriptive (unless they are really referred to as Wood 1, etc.?).
(See: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only)

- Careful in applying appropriate tags (a basketball hoop is not a building, etc.) and not to break multipolygons.

Cheers. Enjoy mapping.

Best,
gmar

Hi. Could you explain your rationale for these edits to college staircases?
Personally, I am not sure that the new solution is an improvement.
They are sui generis buildings. They don't have addresses, so I question the use of the 'addr' tag.
I think the previous use of 'name', while not perfect, is more appropriate, and certainly clearer for the user, especially because the staircases are mapped as distinct buildings. (If the whole building was a single area, with individual entrances mapped as nodes, I could see the unit approach working more, but that's a bigger change, and again, it would lose information more than add).

Hi. The house numbers here are already mapped from 1 to 43 with an interpolation line, which will automatically determine the mid addresses. Further details about the addresses should be added primarily to the end nodes.
See osm.wiki/Key:addr:*#Tags_for_interpolation_ways
Number 45 is mapped already as a separate building.

The building is mapped as a single terrace (osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace), with addresses as separate nodes. No address on the terrace is needed.

If you wanted to replace the terrace with a more detailed number of individual terraced houses, they will need to be drawn individually, with an address on each one of them. (The programme JOSM has some automated plugins for that, if you want to look into it). It would be more detailed, but it doesn't necessarily add much more information, unless the house are of significantly different sizes or shapes.

Note: The official legal designation remains the same.

Hi. I've fixed the multipolygon. The issue was an overlap of segments. Only the outer perimeter should be included, not segments in the middle.
The wiki page shows some examples: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

In this case, because of how it was drawn, the multipolygon was unnecessary and I have removed it, leaving a shape for the building, plus building parts.

Thank you. That must have been from an older changeset. Now fixed, with normal values (I opted for good).
Best wishes.

Thank you. I got the wrong boundary. Fixed now.

I merged this with the already existing node for the sundial. I opted for an artwork tag, instead of a monument one (which refers to large structures).

Does the name refer to the whole thing, or it is just for the title of the plaque?
https://www.headington.org.uk/art/2012_armillary_sphere.html

Reverted.

Hi. I was just wondering if this is an information board, or perhaps a historic=memorial + memorial=plaque.

Wikidata and wikipedia should be prefixed with 'subject:', since the pages are about the event and not the mapped object itself.

Hi. Why unnecessary? The name refers to the overall area, having three duplicates is not correct IMO. If you had issue with its construction, then it would be better to edit its outer.

Hi, thanks for spotting this! I was able to trace back the changeset that deleted it — it was unrelated, so I assume the user did it by mistake. I've restored that original object, which had a more accurate geometry and better tags, and deleted your new replacement.

I've reverted your changes, restoring things as they were. If you think some of the bus stops are not correct, you can edit them again.

Editing the map is to update and improve the data for everyone. If you need to do something for personal use only, you will need a different tool.

You also deleted a cemetery. Please let me know if these were mistakes, and if you need help in reverting your changes.

Hi. Why have you deleted the roads under constructions in the new residential development? The Bing image is out of date, if that's what you saw.