"rechtsaf voor fietsers vrij"

Sorry for posting this question in English. I’m looking how our colleagues in Netherlands are tagging this possibility for cyclists to ignore a red traffic light. I found the rule name “rechtsaf voor fietsers vrij” on this german Wikipedia page :


(interlinked from the Frenche wikipedia:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourne-%C3%A0-droite_cycliste )

I’m asking because we have the same possibility in France since 2012 but we have no clue how to map this.

First, do we have to map this?
I think not.

Do you tag traffic signs on a node?

In the Netherlands there are not much traffic signs tagged.
So, the sign is not tagged in the Netherlands on a node.
There is no official sign number.

Tag the way
By my knowledge there is no tagging on the way. Yet.

How this must look like?


On the cycleway or on the highway with also cycleway=lane.
and then you must also use forward and backward.

I doubt if routing engine ever use it.

turn key
but the turn key is more for, giving lanes turn restrictions.

I doubt if routing engine ever use it.
OSRM is planning to add penalties on traffic signals (default time is already set at 7 sec.)

I’m asking because the question is coming at regular intervals in the French community because such road signs are blooming since 2012. I just wanted to know if this kind of “turn permission” (but it can also be straight ahead, so it’s more an ‘ignore traffic signals’). So if this kind of “turn permission” is an already well established tagging practice in the Netherlands. It seems not.

Okay, delayed time in travel time, yes, that could be a routing use.

So the use is on a node with traffic_signals, and it works like a temporally barrier node.


There is not yet, a tagging description for tagging bicycles traffic signals.

Maybe there must be a new key for or value for bicycles.

And a value for free permission.

How are now, mostly the bicycle trafic signals tagged in France?

It’s not tagged in France because we don’t know how to do it. That’s why I came here. Okay, I think we will look ourselves for a solution :sunglasses:

Did you think about checking the USA to see how traffic lights are handled? In most places you can turn right through red, under certain conditions. But there sometimes is a sign saying “No right on red”, so the tagging of the junction or traffic lights might be able to handle the distinction. In NYC the default is no, so there are signs to explicitly allow right turn on red. If they have found a way to cover all this, just add :bicycle to the data and you are done.

So on a relation.



restriction:bicycle=yes_right_turn_ on_red ??

is there a opposite to restriction tag?

I would suggest (from a linguistic perspective) restriction:bicycle=right_turn_on_red_allowed .

Note that this breaks routing:


So, please don’t mix up different things.


It looks like OSRM is not doing the right thing with no_right_turn_on_red. Maybe it is only looking at the start of the string? I agree that we shouldn’t mix up different things - it looks to me like the tagging is not unreasonable, but OSRM clearly doesn’t yet know how to handle it.

Yes, and this is exactly how it’s documented:

*If the first word is “no_”, then no routing is possible from the “from” to the “to” member, and if it is “only_”, then you know that the only routing originating from the “from” member leads to the “to” member. *