Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideNew Tagore Academy School

Paradise Marriage Garden At, Bhojlawa Cut kaccha Bandha Bhandhan, Chomu, Rajasthan 303702, India27.15690, 75.73397audited 2026-08-08

12/100

Critically unsafeprovisional band

Critically unsafe. Almost nothing on this road protects a child from traffic on the way to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 3 are missing entirely.

This road · 12

0 · no protectioncomplete protection · 100

Checked twice, independently

Two AI readers on separate accounts · corrections logged in public

Confirmed

Corrected

Unresolved

See how each was judged

Of 153 roads scored so far, this one ranks 82 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.

8.75points earned

72points we could see (72%)

12.2%provision

1exposure — local

12.2provision × exposure

→

12SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (72% of the rubric here); the rest is left uncounted rather than guessed. A road with full protective infrastructure scores near 100.

The road in context · derived from public data

Where this road sits

Before the checks: what kind of road this is, how it meets other roads, and what passes it. These lines describe the road and its surroundings — they do not change the score.

Road layout around the gate, drawn from OpenStreetMap — Road layout · drawn from OpenStreetMap · blue dot = school coordinate · red = fatal-crash points (Jaipur Police)

Satellite view of the same area — Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)

FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its NE side

Junctionno junction within 120 m of the gate — a mid-block frontage

Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash record3 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 2 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextLow — 18/100. Describes how much traffic and crash risk passes this road — context only, never part of the road score (method: exposure v1, Data page)

Road layout data © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), retrieved 13 Aug 2026 · crash data: Jaipur Police · derivations: `exposure_v1` on the Data page.

What we found · five checks · IRC:SP:32-2023

Five things we checked — and the photo behind each

Each check was read once, then verified blind by a second reader on a separate account. The photo each finding came from sits right beside it. Tap “see how this was judged” for the full reasoning.

Slowing traffic downP1 · Physical speed control

Nothing slows traffic at the gate

No speed hump, table or rumble strip on the approach — vehicles reach the gate at full speed.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 30 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 30

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device (hump, table, rumble strip, or raised crossing) visible anywhere on the school frontage in either direction, nor across the sampled near-zone. Frontage is a narrow undivided kaccha/partly-compacted local road; a hump or table would be visible if present. Near-gate approaches both directions assessed across multiple consistent views.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalNone

An independent second reader changed this — the two readings disagreed, and the evidence below settled it.

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Differ (audit L1 vs blind L0); corrected to L0 - audit read fell. No marked crossing or faded remnant on the school frontage: the frontage is undifferentiated dirt/compacted local road that holds no paint, and near-gate views are clear. The only marked (zebra) crossing is on the major divided arterial ~150 m away at the far zone terminus (AakN66CX3JhL_h197) - a separate road with flyover, kerbs and lane markings that does not serve the New Tagore gate approach along the local road. Crediting it would be inconsistent with treating that arterial as a different road (imagery_contradicts_mapped_class=false). Not unresolved: the imagery clearly shows no frontage crossing; the L0/L1 split was a crediting-rule question, resolved on methodology.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A broken walking edge

A walking edge exists but is broken or blocked for most of the frontage.

Partial

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No constructed or raised footpath on either side. Applying the local-street standard (continuous clear walkable edge): informal dirt shoulders exist on both sides but are intermittently broken/blocked by permanent causes — waterlogged/rutted ground at the NW junction, rubble and debris beside industrial plots, tree trunks and vegetation in the verge — so no continuous clear walkable edge. Pedestrians and riders use the carriageway. Assessed L1 (exists but broken along most of frontage); this is an L0/L1 boundary call, hence MED confidence. Momentary parked vehicles excluded.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

School name/identity signage is present (name arch 'NEW TAGORE ACADEMY SCHOOL' over the gate plus a vertical 'NEW TAGORE' banner), but these are identity boards, not traffic school-warning signs. No cautionary school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign, and no named 2023-identity zone asset identifiable on the frontage. Several small blue boards on the approaches are unreadable and appear commercial; none is confirmable as a warning or speed sign. Warning signs placed further out on the approaches cannot be excluded.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

A little setback or partial barrier — limited space off the road.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalMinimal

An independent second reader changed this — the two readings disagreed, and the evidence below settled it.

Also cited for this check

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Differ (blind L2 vs audit L1); corrected to L1 - blind read fell. The metal gate sits in a continuous boundary wall with a dirt forecourt, so it is not L0 (it does not open directly onto a defined carriageway). But there is no kerb, paving, railing or bollard line demarcating off-carriageway assembly space: the forecourt is undifferentiated wide dirt continuous with the carriageway, on which goods vehicles park right up to the frontage (KqGo5JyxoBd2_h154, woOSPnvzMdqe_h154). That is minimal setback (L1), not the 'clear setback / railing giving off-carriageway assembly space' that L2 requires; the blind over-credited undifferentiated dirt as assembly space. The possible green pedestrian leaf beside the vehicle gate is not confirmable at HIGH confidence, so L3 is not reached either. Observability 0.70 (blind 0.75 and audit 0.70 within 0.05).

At the gate

On the frontage road

Along the street

Some captures sit on neighbouring lanes; older ones are shown greyed and were used only for context.

What must be fixed · 5 actions

What would make this road safe — and who owns each fix

Each action maps to a failing check, the relevant IRC:SP:32-2023 clause, and the responsible agency. Agency labels are provisional and correctable through the dispute channel.

01Lifts P1

Install a speed table or twin speed humps within 30 m of the gate

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.13 · Table 5.1MCD / PWD · provisional

Speed humps near schools roughly halve child-pedestrian injury odds (Tester 2004); 30 km/h calmed zones ≈ 40% fewer casualties (Grundy 2009).

02Lifts P2

Mark a crossing within 20 m of the gate — table-top preferred

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.4.3MCD / PWD · provisional

Raised crossings cut vehicle speeds at the exact conflict point.

03Lifts P3

Provide a continuous clear walking edge on the school side

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.4.1MCD / PWD · provisional

A continuous footpath keeps children off the carriageway on the approach, not only at the gate.

04Lifts P4

School-zone warning signs on both approaches with the speed limit

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.8MCD / PWD · provisional

The zone must announce itself to drivers before the gate.

05Lifts P5

Add space and a marked pick-up bay off the carriageway at the gate

IRC:SP:32-2023 §5.2MCD / PWD · provisional

Children should not step from the gate into a moving traffic lane.

Responsible-agency labels come from the CFI field instrument’s mapping and are correctable via the dispute channel.

Re-audit timeline

2026-08-08Audited

2027-02-08Re-audit due

Every published road is re-read every six months, or as soon as new Street View imagery lands, or on a sustained dispute.

Something wrong on this page?

The entrance, the imagery, a finding — if any of it is wrong, tell us. A dispute pauses this page while the audit is re-verified, and the correction is logged in the public record.

Dispute this audit