Sign 250 + "Anlieger frei", but rcn relation goes over it?

How does the german community handle a situation where, on the one hand a road has sign 250 + “Anlieger frei” (only “Anlieger”, not “Radfahrer und Anlieger frei”)
and on the other hand, a rcn relation goes over this highway (specifically, this one Reichswald Fränkische Schweiz Radweg (3701) Relation: ‪Reichswald Fränkische Schweiz Radweg‬ (‪3701‬) | OpenStreetMap)

Would you blindly follow the traffic sign (vehicle=destination), or pragmatically tag it with (vehicle=destination bicycle=yes)

In similar cases, I left all “as is”.
The signage is obviously not appropriate but legal and binding.
The rcn is official but you have to push your bicycle.

But I’ve mailed to the responsible authority (town hall, …) referring to to obvious clash.

  • One mayor replied, the “building yard” changed the sign and I adapted
  • Another person did not answer and I left all “as is”

Hi ToniE, thanks for your reply. What do you mean with “as is”? I my case, the highway has no access tags. Cars are being routed over it at the moment.

In general, route network has no relation to the legal access of a highway. It would be best, if it’s correlates, though in OSM the proper (signed) access should be tagged. You can complain to local authorities about wrong access signs, if it’s bothers you :wink:


I assumed that the highway was already tagged according to the sign with vehicle=destination.

I absolutely favour the pragmatic approach (bicycle=yes).

Unfortunately, the sign 250 grafik is often used in Germany without realising (or in ignorance) that it also applies to bicycle traffic, although the exclusion of bicycle traffic is rarely intended. In practice, sign 260 grafik (prohibition for motor vehicles) is often meant. In OSM mapping practice, therefore, you often see that access for bicycles is not restricted. Especially if a cycle route runs over it, I think this is absolutely reasonable and I myself also use bicycle=yes in this cases. Only mapping the legal situation allegedly indicated by a traffic sign will lead to data that is not suitable for practical use.

But in fact, there is not always an answer whether the signage is obviously incorrect or intended. Therefore, this should always be decided on a single case basis, ideally by local mappers.

Contacting the local authorities is always a wise way to clarify the situation if possible.


The signage is otften intended. A way that is forbidden for public traffic has not to be maintained, so it is often about money and responsibility when an accident happens.
I think the only way to hande this is to map the found signs, no matter how confusing they are.

The additional sign traffic_sign=DE:1020-30 is “sometimes” somewhat confusing.

“Anlieger frei” means that if I have a request, i.e. I have a reason, then I am allowed to use this path! This may be because it is a destination or because it is the only way to reach your destination. That’s always a bit vague.

In the case of these cycle paths, this means that I can only get from point A to point B via this signposted path. This is precisely the personal reason for having to use this path… Yes, this signposting is quite confusing… but not uncommon here in DE… I know there’s a better way…


with traffic_sign=DE:250,1020-30 and an rcn cycle route, the cycle route must not be blocked.


Das stimmt oftmals, ja. Aber ich kenne auch Radwege wo tatsächlich gewollt ist, dass nicht mit dem Rad gefahren wird und man für diesen Abschnitt schieben muss. Ich würde immer die rechtlich korrekte Variante erfassen. Wenn etwas passiert (Unfall) ist dies vor Gericht entscheident.

250 mit “Anlieger frei” klingt aber wirklich sehr verdächtig. Hier würde ich persönlich aber trotzdem vehicle=destination taggen und die Stadt anschreiben. Ich persönlich habe gute Erfahrungen gemacht, dass solche Schilder dann korrigiert wurden. Wir erfassen schließlich die Realität so genau wie möglich. Die Entscheidung wie damit umzugehen ist, müssen die Anwendungen (Router) dann treffen. Die können diese mutmaßliche Korrektur selber durchführen und einen Hinweis auf die unklare Situation geben.


Thanks everybody for the replies. Except for Supaplex030, it seems like most other people would tag it exactly as the road signs dictates.

About writing to the local government: I won’t bother, we’re here on holiday and my german isn’t good enough :slight_smile:

Hallo Sven, hasst Du eine valide Rechtsquelle für diese Auffassung?

Ich bin der Auffassung, dass dies falsch ist.
Das Wort “Anlieger” hat nichts mit dem Anliegen des Fahrzeugnutzers im Sinne von “Grund” oder “Interesse” zu tun. Vielmehr bezieht es sich auf die räumliche Lage des anliegenden Grundstücks im Sinne von “angrenzend”.
Entscheidend für das Benutzungsrecht ist daher, ob man selbst Anlieger ist (Eigentümer oder Nutzungsberechtigter eines angrenzenden Grundstücks) oder beabsichtigt, mit einem Anlieger zu interagieren.


Would you like to tell us exactly which street is involved and where the specific signposts are? The linked relation is a bit long.
Perhaps one of us would like to write to the local government.

Have a nice holiday!

I favour the correct approach: bicycle=dismount.

But vehicle=destination + bicycle=dismount is not correct in this case.

Würde ich als highway=service taggen.

Unfortunately, the sign 250 grafikis often used in Germany without realising (or in ignorance) that it also applies to bicycle traffic, although the exclusion of bicycle traffic is rarely intended. In practice, sign 260 grafik(prohibition for motor vehicles) is often meant.

you cannot ignore signs if they are posted, even if you think something else should have been posted :slight_smile:
Ultimately if a sign DE260 is there you may not ride your bike there, if you are caught you can get fined and if you are involved in an accident your position is worse if you haven’t had the right to ride there.

Tagging bicycle=yes is not pragmatic, it would be plain wrong

1 Like

No, I think a pragmatic approach is appropriate when information on the ground is conflicting - in the case we are discussing here, the signposting as a cycle route and the signposting with Z250 (be aware that we are discussing these cases here). Nobody can tell me that the local authorities want cyclists to push a few kilometres of cycle route :slight_smile:

Also in other cases the legal enforcement does not correspond to the signposted reality. From local political activities, for example, I know of cases of paths through parks that are part of the cycle route network, even though the park regulations prohibit cycling there. The local authorities are aware of the problem, but do not install new signs (because: “nobody obeys them anyway and it only costs money”). The enforcement office (german “Ordnungsamt”) has been instructed not to enforce the bicycle prohibition. With this knowledge, bicycle is at least permissive.

Perhaps bicycle=permissive would also be an acceptable interim solution in other cases.


The local authority may be the owner(s) of the land. For them, it is easier and cheaper to forbid all traffic so that they are not responsible when a cyclist has an accident because of a pothole or other obstacles.
I know some ways like that and contacted the owners and they told me this and said something like “no problem, you can cycle there, but don’t blame us if something happened” and still nothing changed regarding the “wrong” VZ 250.

The legal situation is bicycle=dismount. For sure, no police officer will stand there enforcing the rule.
In the end it doesn’t matter why the authorities doing so. They did so and OSM should be able to provide routing according to the law. Additionally it’s rather easy for a router to just treat bicycle=dismount same as bicycle=yes. But this always should be a decision made by the router, not by the data provider.

1 Like