Bonne idée, merci pour la suggestion ! Je n’y suis plus pour le moment malheureusement mais je m’en occupe si j’y repasse dans les jours qui viennent.

After reading a couple of pages about landuse and residential, i think i pretty much agree with the

"area=yes
name=xxx"

option. The information about the landuse should actually be differenciated.
The issue remains to be able to distinguish the limits of the "community", all the more if it is physically closed : sometimes it's possible to map the "border" as it is clearly delimited, but sometimes only the gate is visible and the rest of the border is not...

(Update : i added a link to the map for illustration. It's "Le Roucas Plage" at the center of the map)

Oops, too fast :/
I wonder if it's not better to avoid the multiplication of superimposed areas, if it's just to get a name displayed. But it also allows to clearly materialize the community... Got to check on tagwatch about this :)

area=yes & name=xxx sounds interesting to include the community into a larger residential area. It allows to avoid the creation of several contiguous areas with complex contours...
On the other side, I don't know if the multiplication of objects in the database (eg 2 area
it multiplies the areas (so the objects in the database, not sure it is a "good practice".

Yeah I thought about using just fence, or wall (depending on the situation), but I don't know how to name the places without a landuse tag...