Not about the 'display'. It is about being correct.
There are a large number of objects in OSM that have no name .. are they all to carry 'names' to describe them? Buildings? Tree areas? Grass areas? Water areas? Roundabouts? Toilets? All to carry descriptions of what they are in the 'name' space rather than relying on the graphical depiction of what they are?
I repeat - the 'name' tag should not be used to describe an object in OSM.

Do NOT use the name tag as a description!
See name=*#Additional_data
"name=* tag is supposed to contain solely name"

If you must describe something use the tag "description=*"

Firstly .. don't concentrate on 'display' but rather on correct tagging.
If you cannot find it on hte OSM wiki then try taginfo to see what others are using.
Alternative names? Cape? natural=cape

As for the sometimes river/sand surface...
Humm river intermittent=yes might get some comprehension .. or use the conditional tagging .. don't think it will 'display' but that is another problem.

The beach has a length ... and a width.

The length is >0 meters
The width looks like 0 .. nothing.

As it is a relation, having 0 width is ridiculous. Arr the relation only has a surface=sand .. and is clearly part of the named beach. So I have combined the two into the one relation. This goes against the present wit=ki on OSM beach definition .. but that definition is contentious.

So I have just now reverted at least some of this changeset... so the beach is now back to having some width. This may have reversed some of your changes ...

Hi,
Beach relation/6554134 now has 0 width...

Hi,
Thanks for repairing these.

Err typo ...
'There are now in error ... and should be changed.'

Hi,
You are changing the source of Way: 67803535. Yet you have not changed the tags on the way that say "source"="ABS_2006" and "attribution"="Based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data". These not are in error ... and should be changed.

Without the tree area you can now see some problems ...
relation/7743426#map=12/-34.4876/115.7516 shows the state forest is still tagged .. as that is now part of the NP it can be retagged/removed. I'd retag it so that mappers can still see it, possibly from landuse=forest to was:landuse=forest?
It will be worth looking around while the tree cover is not rendered to see what is there.

OSM specifies we don't use copyright data .. the source for D"Etrecasteaux NP is tagged as CAPAD 2016 .. think that is the best that can be done unless you have another source that is usable in OSM (non copyright or allowed by agreement).

After using landcover tags in a few NP I have come to the conclusion that it is not a good practice and have done extensive work in removing them from NPs NSW, they are now completely separate things.

1) Landuse=forestry was introduced for the first time with this changeset to this NP.

2) Trees don't usually start and stop at some administration boundary!
For example Lane Cove National Park relation/2962929#map=13/-33.7737/151.1393 with tree area relation/3651359#map=13/-33.7737/151.1393

3) Layers in principle are used to signify one feature is vertically displaced from another - e.g. a road on a bridge over a river. It should not be used to cover up things that are not true. The tree area example above excludes various residential areas, grass areas, sports areas. This is done using a multipolygon relation. The tree area does not follow the NP boundary.

4) I do not think the area is logged any more .. so landuse=forest is wrong! Use land cover tagging such as landcover=trees, natural=wood.

5) I think you will find boundary=national_park is being replaced with some administration boundary thing.

I'll remove the landuse deceleration from this NP boundary. If you want to tag the tree area don't do it as the NP exclusively. The present tagging has trees through the beach, a lake!

Oh .. not all of the area is covered by trees .. some of it is beach !

Hi,
Is the D'Entrecasteaux National Park used for forestry? You have added the tag landuse=forest ... is it not just a land cover of trees .. not a land use?

Hi,
These edits are resulting in the beaches getting crossed up.
Way so far effected are 485462676, 304473466, 485462672. There may be others too.

It can be hard to determine what is part of the park.
Is the Catalina Conference Center part of the Park?
Is the foot path to Starboard Close part of the park? And, if so .. how wide is the parks area there?
These things are easier to determine using the base map.

Hi,
Some of these ways are used by other relations .. not just woods. This results in those relations being open ... and they need fixing... eg relation/3113565
As you now use another account .. I think this changeset should be reverted.

Deleted the canal and water supply. Crosses boundaries in LPI Base Map, not eveident in LPI Imagery. Real stuff only in OSM please.

The buildings should be 'square' - use the S key in iD to do this.

The Finger Park looks like it should be larger .. use the LPI Base Map.

Ok? .. Keep mapping stuff Pwnedragon , but keep it real for OSM.

Hi,
This has destroyed way/361670455 - a building...

Hi,
Memory test?
You named the Bulga trail 'no thorough road'. Is this for 'all' - including walkers, fire engines, land managers .. or is it for private cars/motorcycles .. ? And then is the 'end' at the gate in the north?
I have remove the description from the name, but think the access restriction should be placed on the gate .. probably motor_vehicle=private would be best.

Hi,
For things like parks use the LPI Base Map - it has the legal boundaries and names of the park. I have changed Rathmines Park to match the Base Map rather than imagery.