It is to do with the access tags, and in particular probably the access=no one. If you compare [this way you added][1] with [this one that already existed][2] you can see the difference is the access restrictions. There are differing views on whether you need quite so many access tags on cycleways. Cycle access is normally assumed, foot is often added if pedestrians can also use it, but often it is assumed that motor vehicles can't access it so none of your exclusions are usually added, though there is nothing wrong in being explicit. However I suspect it is that default access=no by default and then adding the explicit yes values that causes the faintness (like the P for private car parks compared to non-private ones). Edit: Also, I'm not an expert, but I think it is the area of the stylesheet around [this line][3] which is relevant. [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/876263323 [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/189412627https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/189412627 [3]: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/style/roads.mss#L1951

It is to do with the access tags, and in particular probably the access=no one. If you compare [this way you added][1] with [this one that already existed][2] you can see the difference is the access restrictions. There are differing views on whether you need quite so many access tags on cycleways. Cycle access is normally assumed, foot is often added if pedestrians can also use it, but often it is assumed that motor vehicles can't access it so none of your exclusions are usually added, though there is nothing wrong in being explicit. However I suspect it is that default access=no by default and then adding the explicit yes values that causes the faintness (like the P for private car parks compared to non-private ones). [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/876263323 [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/189412627