Upcoming overhaul of the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals

General talk
,
1

In May, the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, along with the European Agreement and Protocol on Road Markings, was amended to incorporate a large number of revisions proposed by Lithuania and Luxembourg at the 2024 Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety. The amendments are scheduled to go into effect on 12 November 2026 in every contracting party state (except in Chile and the Netherlands, which rejected the amendments).

There are many changes. Some are clerical in nature. The sign numbering system has been updated for ease of use. Fortunately, our tagging scheme doesn’t use the Vienna Convention sign numbers directly, though a few tags are defined in terms of individual signs. For example, motorroad=yes now corresponds to sign E.06-1 instead of sign E, 6a.

The more substantive changes harmonize signs to follow European standards where previously countries could choose between different options. Most notably, the older triangle-in-circle style of stop sign has been outlawed in favor of the :stop_sign: red octagon, affecting Cuba and Pakistan.

The :hollow_red_circle: red-rimmed circle style of mandatory sign that’s used across Latin America has been outlawed in favor of the :blue_circle: blue circle style used in most of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Of the affected countries, Chile has rejected the amendments on procedural and safety grounds, while the Central American countries have their own standard that diverged from Vienna Convention even before the latest changes. I wouldn’t expect Central America to switch over to the European style overnight. Other Latin American countries aren’t legally bound by the convention, so regional consistency will probably be a higher priority.

Some new signs have been introduced, including several advance direction signs, signs for emergency exits and construction detours, and some additional panels related to parking restrictions. This is likely codifying signs found in European national standards, if not also the European Agreement.

This is mostly a heads-up to mapping communities in countries that are parties to the Vienna Convention. Any legislative process to implement the amendments is probably already underway. Local communities should keep an eye on these changes and update country-specific tagging pages accordingly.

11 Likes
Highway=pedestrian split and tagged as highway=footway + footway=crossing at intersections?
2

Do you know why Netherlands rejected amendment?

3

The ratification process began last November with a one-year period for legal implementation. At that time, the Netherlands notified the UN that they would need more than a year to get it done. So they agree with the changes in principle but not with the timeline.

Chile registered more significant concerns. They regard the amendment as a wholesale replacement of the treaty and protest that it was developed entirely within the UNECE. They aren’t a member of the commission and weren’t invited to the Global Forum. (Ironically, two MUTCD countries, the U.S. and Canada, did participate.) They also raise safety concerns about specific graphical treatments and about the removal of the Red Crescent as an alternative to the Red Cross in the first aid symbol.

The broader context seems to be a desire to make traffic signs more compatible with the needs of autonomous vehicles and traffic sign recognition systems. I assume that was the reason for eliminating design options. In the U.S., the MUTCD was also revamped a couple years ago with AVs in mind, though that revision added lots more signs than it eliminated, which could help to minimize local ad hoc signs.

1 Like