If you are interested in widely accepted practice I suggest you read about the principles of One feature, one OSM element [1], which is at the root of this discussion, and tagging for the renderer [2] which you implied you were doing in your first response.

I don't think "90+% of the community" would accept scrub plastered over existing beaches and properties as an improvement nor would they support a change from the primary way to map islands in the sea [3] to a multipolygon that excludes large chunks of that island.

[1]: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
[2]: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
[3]: osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Disland#Islands_in_the_sea

Both OSM Inspector area detection, and the link you posted (Figure 18 1st image) say the multipolygon you have made is wrong. The satellite imagery also shows that you have incorrectly extended "scrub" tagging over areas that are construction, beach, cleared for residences and bare rock. And you have decisively excluded areas that are clearly part of the island from the tagged island in order to create the false assertion that the island is all scrub when it blatantly isn't.

It doesn't matter to me if the island related tags are on the coastline polygon (simpler, more traditional) or on a pointless single-child "multi"polygon (also an OSM Inspector error), but what is currently tagged is nonsense.

Norman's Cay is the name of the island, not the scrub. The scrub is a separate entity. As the coastline way is relatively short it is probably the best host for the island related tags.
OSM Inspector (and probably other software) is also alarmed by the segment shared between inner and outer ways.

Is it not a little unconventional to exclude the airport area from an island multipolygon?

Please do not use descriptions as names.

Yes, I've been meaning to go through these and delete most of the 'descriptions'.

Do you have a source for the building you have named "BUILDING 3: CHURCH"?

I have removed the building named "Building 1" as it doesn't appear in the cited imagery. If you have another source for this please re-add with that source listed.

I can see no traces of these using the imagery cited in your changeset so I have removed them. If you are actually using newer imagery that does have them please mention that as your source instead when you re-add.

Can you confirm your source for this usage?

Hello,
You have added a street name, but your changeset only mentions Bing imagery. Do you have a source for the name?

That is a violation of Google's copyright and forbidden by the terms you agreed to when you created your account.

Why have you moved shop tags from the building that form them independent nodes? Unless the buildings have multiple, as yet untagged uses, this seems to actually reduce the information available to users.

Hello,
OpenStreetMap follows the principle of "One feature, one OSM element." This means Parking etc. Should be mapped as *either* a node or a way, but not both.

Hello, where did you find the names for these shops?

Hello,
OSM has a principle of one "One feature, one OSM element". Parking etc. should be added as either a node or a area, but not both.
Happy mapping.

Neither "South Abaco" nor "Bahamas"are cities.

What is your source for maxspeed?

I think two of these look more like cell towers.

In JOSM: CTRL+SHIFT+G will replace way geometry while retaining way history.