Hi IpswichEdits, first of all, apologies, I did not realise it was your preferred mapping style. I blindly assumed these landuses were mapped long time ago. I should have researched the local area more before jumping in. If you prefer the previous convention I am happy to revert my changes.

Regarding alignment - I used OSMUK Cadastral Parcels, which as I understand are supposed to produce a definitive alignment. This indeed resulted in an offset between new landuse boundaries and buildings. As the amount of changes was quite large I opted for the "correct" alignment. If you are OK with this style of landuses, please let me know if you want me to align buildings to cadastral parcels or align landuses to buildings. I did notice the existing data were mapped very precisely indeed, albeit at a different offset.

Regarding conventions - I prefer mapping landuses away from the roads, as tends to match the actual use better (although legal status sometimes differs) and allows more freedom in allocating different landuses types to different plots of land, without all the complexity of multi-polygons etc. In my opinion having landuses connect to roads can be also more difficult to maintain (both roads and landuses accumulate a lot more points than they really need). Also, this is purely philosophical and debatable, I prefer to keep 1D and 2D objects as separate data classes that don't mix.

This is not to convince you this is the right method of mapping landuses (it has its own limitations too), just explain my logic. Having others enjoy mapping is far more important, so if you would like me to revert or clean up my changes in any specific way just let me know.