I'm torn between changing cottages and not changing them.
On the one hand, taking away one food and removing the non adjacency restriction gives a lot more flexibility in areas such as France. China and India, where you have plenty of grassland and food, and often find all you can do with the grassland you can't cottage is endless workshops, which is not very realistic either. It would also mean you could make proper suburbs, with some cottages next to each other rather than just two or three around cities which don't have flat land in the right position. Also you don't find yourself having to raze a cottage that the AI has built in a suboptimal position, which always strikes me as being a bit stupid.
On the other hand, taking food away from cottages will make them next to useless in areas with little food, and will mean that plains become almost worthless - either they take up two food with a cottage or workshop, or they only just feed the person working them with a farm. That said, it is quite realistic to have relatively barren areas of the map not having many cottages, and they should arguably be much less populated with cottages than areas with lots of grassland.
Personally, I think the move to take one food away from cottages works as long as they get a commerce boost to make up for it (by adding 1 at hamlet level) and also if irrigated farms get +1 (perhaps as a bonus with crop rotation or horticulture). That would make it even more realistic, with fertile flood plains and river lands providing lots of food to support the cottages and workshops. It would also make players think about where they put things, rather than just alternating farms and workshops once all non adjacent cottage plots have been used up.
On the one hand, taking away one food and removing the non adjacency restriction gives a lot more flexibility in areas such as France. China and India, where you have plenty of grassland and food, and often find all you can do with the grassland you can't cottage is endless workshops, which is not very realistic either. It would also mean you could make proper suburbs, with some cottages next to each other rather than just two or three around cities which don't have flat land in the right position. Also you don't find yourself having to raze a cottage that the AI has built in a suboptimal position, which always strikes me as being a bit stupid.
On the other hand, taking food away from cottages will make them next to useless in areas with little food, and will mean that plains become almost worthless - either they take up two food with a cottage or workshop, or they only just feed the person working them with a farm. That said, it is quite realistic to have relatively barren areas of the map not having many cottages, and they should arguably be much less populated with cottages than areas with lots of grassland.
Personally, I think the move to take one food away from cottages works as long as they get a commerce boost to make up for it (by adding 1 at hamlet level) and also if irrigated farms get +1 (perhaps as a bonus with crop rotation or horticulture). That would make it even more realistic, with fertile flood plains and river lands providing lots of food to support the cottages and workshops. It would also make players think about where they put things, rather than just alternating farms and workshops once all non adjacent cottage plots have been used up.