Render shared paths with an underline, change cycleways color

[pastk]

Shared paths: add a cycling underline.

• made shared paths's dashes more sparse so that cycle underline is more visible
• change cycle lines color to blue
• use a tad darker blue color for outdoors style
• tuned cycle lines widths

Depends on #7878

• closes https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/5289
• closes https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/7255

[pastk]

shared and dedicated

z13 dedicated

z17 shared unpaved

Note that we might have a distinct color for paved vs unpaved dedicated cycleways too - similar to footways vs paths.

[pastk]

The new color is much more contrast against all backgrounds compared to the current violet. And hopefully is distinct enough from the rivers :) Dark green could be another option.

(table source)

[pastk]

• made shared paths's dashes more sparse so that cycle underline is more visible
• tuned cycle lines widths
• use a tad darker color for outdoors

[pastk]

[pastk]

Another comparison with the previous color:

[map-per]

Tested the PR with the new map data from #8009: Sometimes the blue line is drawn on top of the white line (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1158116910). Looks like it has something to do with segregated.

Edit: Looks like the bug occurs for all highway=path with segregated=yes

[pastk]

Tested the PR with the new map data from #8009: Sometimes the blue line is drawn on top of the white line (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1158116910). Looks like it has something to do with segregated.

Yeap its as intended:

• dedicated cycleways are solid blue lines
• segregated cycleways + footways are solid blue lines over white dashes
• non-segregated (shared) cycleways + footways are blue lines under white dashes

It'd be better to render "segregated cycleways + footways" somehow different, e.g. a solid blue line along white dashes, but we don't have this capability ATM, see #7952

[biodranik]

It's too colorful for the main style, let's move these changes to the outdoor style.

[map-per]

Distinguishing paths for cyclists and not for cyclists in the main style is good. Especially for cycling in cities, as the the outdoor style is not designed for dense areas.

But especially at zoom 13 dedicated cycleways and segregated cycleways + footways do are very prominent.

I would either

• drop the distinction of segregated (this info is not really important for cycling) and always draw the blue line below the white line. This way the paths won't be that prominent.

or

• fine tune the the prominence on lower zoom levels e.g. with higher opacity

[biodranik]

Please don't turn the clean main style into a second outdoor style but for cyclists. We all agree that creating a separate cyclist-centric style is the right option.

[map-per]

I didn't fully figure out what you changed for cycleways, but it looks good now. The blue lines are not too prominent any more. 👍

A few days ago	now

(Location on OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1681356475#map=15/48.1098/11.5378)

[pastk]

@map-per your "now" screenshot looks strange - the most of cycleways are just gone there :/ I guess it has a different map data version, e.g. from a previous release as most of those cycleways seem to be highway=path segregated=yes and were not displayed at low zooms

In the current beta it should be like (z14):

Likely we'll reduce cycleways opacity a little on z13-14 before the release.

[pastk]

z14 from the last release for comparison (paths are not displayed on z13)

[pastk]

Stats:

• ~100k of highway=path segregated=yes are converted into cycleways and hence will be visible from z13
• ~1M (out of 1.7M!) of non-segregated highway=cycleway foot=yes/designated are converted into "shared" footway-bicycle and hence will disappear on z13-14

So overall number of cycleways visible on z13-14 will significantly reduce, but in some regions like Munchen it could look vice versa.

[biodranik]

Display them prominently in Outdoors, and leave not prominent at all in the main style?

[map-per]

your "now" screenshot looks strange - the most of cycleways are just gone there :/ I guess it has a different map data version, e.g. from a previous release as most of those cycleways seem to be highway=path segregated=yes and were not displayed at low zooms

Oh, yes, that was the old map data from March. I overlooked that the new map data isn't merged into master yet.