I seem to have missed this earlier, and it's been a bit of a battle to get to it tonight - Forum kept redirecting me for about 15-20 seconds, but it seems to have stabilised for the moment. I hope...

Interesting looking map, certainly.

The trees seem a bit overwhelming in places, contrasted with the settlement sizes. I'm not sure if it's as much the transparency issue though with this style; placement is everything to avoid overlaps, and this looks a little messy in places to my eye. Struggling to follow the river lines in places, for instance.

The settlement and ship symbols seem to have ended up on different Sheets, as some are transparent, others not, which also looks odd, as I'm assuming the lack of a key means these variants don't have some particular meaning.

The navigation lines out of Lake Quelimar into the sea also look a bit confusing, unless there's some concealed connection between the two the lines are meant to represent?

Vederit's too close to the northern map border, I think.

Does the darker shading on some of the more southerly mountains have an especial significance?

As Loopysue suggested, this is indeed a too-many-nodes problem, and it's very common when drawing river lines using the fractal drawing tools.

The SIMPLIFY command should help reduce the number of nodes to the point where you don't get these artefacts, but you might also lose much of the naturalistic appearance along the river line, especially if you have to repeat the command on the line more than a couple of times.

I spent ages early on trying to locate and delete the individual problematic nodes, until I discovered said command...

You may find that drawing rivers using a straight or smooth line, rather than a fractal one, means you don't get this problem in the first place, but you will need to add more separate nodes to get a similar organically-natural-looking line for your rivers.

Personally, my preference is for straight lines, since at the scale of most overland maps, you won't notice the line segments as being straight at all, and they're much easier to adjust afterwards, should you need to, than smooth curved lines, because you can see more easily where the nodes are on straight lines, and how the line will change when you move a node, than with the smooth curve, where the node frequently isn't on the line, and where moving it can cause issues for adjacent line segments as well.

The rocks have always looked fine to me, simply as rocks. The colouring and texture would work nicely for pale sandstones through sandy limestones to limestones, but they'd also look good as pale granites as well.

The very white sand is typical of tropical-coral-debris "sands" (because it's composed mostly of wave-broken-down dead coral); I like the marginally toned-down appearance in your most recent screenshots for this though. That will work for paler sandy deserts too, of course.

REALLY loving the "damped-down" boulder edges now, with the softer edge lines and the nicely organic darker lower areas!

Water-clarity is going to be an issue for anywhere that doesn't regularly get calm-water periods, and also where there are regular amounts of finer materials (silts, muds, less mentionable substances...) being deposited into the near-coastal seas. So it's probably best to ignore that, and go with artistic licence/necessity. As this is a tool for mapping, simply indicating what areas are underwater will be a big help, even if they're not wholly photorealistic for all environments. Should anyone require that for the more variable temperate waters, say, simply suggest adding suitably coloured polygons across the whole underwater area, with a not-very transparent Transparency Effect, and classic muddy waters will magically appear!

OK, this is a bit more "tropical seas only" than I was thinking.

The coral overhang is, as far as I recall, only a thing with living corals, not the underlying rocks (which themselves are likely to be largely made up from increasingly compacted dead coral skeletons). The overhang will only survive as long as its own weight/strength and tidal action allows, of course, so collapse of unsupported areas is still liable to happen, especially when there are no longer living coral polyps there to help keep the whole "glued" together. As you'll gather, I was assuming the rocks were "just" rocks, not intended as the immediate substrate for living corals!

Keeping the coral symbols separate from the rocky bit ones would offer greater flexibility, certainly.

The wildlife looks absolutely brilliant Sue!

Not quite so sold on the geology yet though. The above-sea sand seems a tad too bright, and the white outline looks odd - as also on the surfaced rocks. I think I can see why you've drawn it like this, but actual rocks, and sand, tend to get darker when wet, if sometimes only subtly so, so the line (actually a zone whose size is determined by ripples splashing on the exposed surfaces, were they real) should be darker where the rocks/sand meet the sea.

The stacking of the rocks doesn't look quite right either. Higher rocks should lie at or within the outlines of those below them if supported by only a single rock, as anything else wouldn't be stable, and would simply collapse into a different pattern ordinarily.

Not sure if the rocks are symbols or simply drawn polygons however; if the latter, the stacking problem is easily resolved, and I'd imagine the water-line effect could be handled with an appropriate Inner Glow Effect. If they're symbols, though... sorry!