Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideWarren Public School

26, Mumbai - Agra National Hwy, Malhotra Nagar, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302039, India26.97246, 75.78259audited 2026-08-06

33/100

Unsafeprovisional band

Unsafe. Very little on this road protects a child crossing to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 2 are missing entirely.

This road · 33

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 147 (worst first). The others scored between 0 and 41.

23.75points earned

71.75points we could see (72%)

33.1%provision

1exposure — local

33.1provision × exposure

→

33SSI · 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 W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

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

Crash recordno road death within 500 m of the gate in the Jaipur Police crash data

Exposure contextModerate — 22/100. 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 devices (humps, tables, rumble strips) on either frontage at the gate or along visible approaches; carriageway flat throughout. Marked crossing at ~30m is flat, not a raised table. Far reaches (150m+) are unpaved lanes, also without devices.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A marked crossing in the zone

A legible marked crossing is present in the school zone.

Partial

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

One marked zebra crossing with clearly discernible but worn/faded stripes on the paved frontage within the zone (~30m, 2oxkwzYGdgbG_h116). Undivided ~2-lane local street, so refuge not required. Exact distance to gate not determinable and stripes worn, and single clear view, so not advanced to L3. Perpendicular dirt frontage shows no crossing.

◑

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⟳ Corrected in review

BasicMinimal

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

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit L2 (HIGH) vs blind L1 (MED). Deciding images re-examined. The audit's L2 rested on a continuous interlocking-paver walkway 'at three pano positions', but two of the three do not support it: W6BQMnqUgOzr_h241 is a bare unpaved dirt lane (no paver walkway at all) and Qd_o1lAOGIwa_h296 shows only a localized paver strip at a dusty junction, not a continuous frontage footpath. Genuine continuous paver is confined to the immediate paved gate frontage (RJVMaA8H5E_2_h051/h116). Along most of the frontage/approaches the walkable edge is absent or broken: perpendicular unpaved frontage at the secondary gate (kvDr080iFFOk_h217/h075), dirt/gravel edge at ~40m (Qd_o1lAOGIwa_h116), and far dirt lanes. An edge that exists but is broken along most of the frontage = L1. The audit read falls (its L2 evidence is partly a misidentified dirt frame). Corrected to L1, MED (borderline, so not HIGH). Observability 0.65 (both agree; parked vehicles occlude the edge surface in places).

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning traffic signs or speed-limit signs observed on either approach or at the gate. The blue 'WPS' roundel on the building is school name/branding, not a road-safety sign (not credited). No 2023-identity assets (zone-start, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white markings, beacons). Abundant roadside trees could occlude small signs.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

Space and a railing at the gate

A clear setback or railing gives room to gather off the carriageway.

Partial

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Built form: continuous ~1m masonry wall topped with metal railing (clear, not partial, barrier). Main pedestrian gate on the paved frontage opens onto an interlocking-paver apron wide enough to hold a parked SUV, giving off-carriageway assembly space (RJVMaA8H5E_2_h051). No separate pedestrian opening confirmed in zoom and no continuous rail gate-to-crossing, so not advanced to L3. No marked pick-up/drop-off bay observed.

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 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.

03Lifts 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.

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

2026-08-06Audited

2027-02-06Re-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