This is an age old-debate: How should one marry up a landuse boundary and a road? Should, with the convenience of Bing Maps, we try and map the land use up to the edge the road on the image - or just connect it up with the road.
Initially when I started mapping I took the former approach, and kept things split. It wasn't until I had noticed somebody had mapped the pavement (or sidewalk for you yanks) along side a road in one village that I started to realise the error of my ways.
Landuse - is just that. The designation of the land - often this is split up by highways (roads and rivers etc). The issue we have is that the line on the map editor is one dimensional - there is no width information, so when we zoom in, the land use edge appears to end in the middle of the road. This is an easy mistake to make as it is what we see but we have to remember when the map is rendered, the road has a width to it and it is entirely sensible for the road to be the dividing section of different landuses.
The alternative approach would be to draw roads as areas themselves, defining the landuse as highway. This of course is a silly idea.
The messy bit arrives when there is another border for the landuse and road - in the form of a hedge or fence. This then gets confusing - where do you stick the hedge? If you stick it in the correct place then usually it's drawn over by the road when it renders. You can't join it on the highway node though, as there are usually a barrier on both sides of the road - and the highway is one-dimensional. Conundrum.
Whilst highways can already have the width defined, I don't think it's something that is really supported or widely used. I think perhaps in addition to this we need to think about having attributes that relate to the edging of roads - this could quickly get complicated though - what about where only one direction has a pavement? What if it has a pavement and a fence?