Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideRajshri Shahu Maharaj Prathamik Vidyalaya

Gandhi Chowk, GWMH+WH8, Mundhwa Rd, Lonkar Ali, Mundhwa, Pune, Maharashtra 411036, India18.53479, 73.92896audited 2026-09-04

15/100

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 · 15

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

11.25points earned

76.05points we could see (76%)

14.8%provision

1exposure — local

14.8provision × exposure

→

15SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (76% 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

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

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 6-leg junction

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

Crash recordcrash-location data is not yet available for Delhi — this line will be added when a public source lands

Exposure contextModerate — 22/100 (partial: no crash component yet). 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 visible on the frontage or on either usable approach across multiple clear views. Carriageway is patchy/worn asphalt but shows no speed hump, raised table, or rumble/thermoplastic bands. Immediate gate-mouth surface is partly obscured by Street View privacy blur, but the mid-ground approaches are clearly readable.

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

BasicNone

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≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement (blind L0 vs audit L2). Deciding image is the audit's sole basis, Oz_-dyCJvzfE h070, which the audit read as a 'legible zebra-marked crossing with a raised planted median'. Re-examined: that image is a junction dominated by a large banyan tree on a raised painted tree-island with billboards and informal gathering; no legible zebra/marked crossing stripes and no built carriageway median are visible. A tree island is not a marked crossing or a divider. No crossing markings appear at the gate or along the frontage in the well-seen frontage views either. Audit's L2 is not supported by the imagery; blind L0 upheld.

◑

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≈68%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street; assessed continuous clear walkable edge. School-side edge is largely unpaved/broken dirt along most of the frontage with only a short tiled section immediately at the gate; opposite side is vacant/construction ground with rubble and no walkable edge. No continuous usable walking edge exists along most of the frontage (permanent surface/geometry causes), so L1.

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

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈78%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning sign, no regulatory speed-limit sign, and no carriageway speed stamp visible on either approach. Only decorative painted children/hygiene murals on the compound wall and the school name board are present; these carry no regulatory/warning function.

◑

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⟳ Corrected in review

MinimalBasic

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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈85%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement (blind L2 vs audit L1). Deciding images are the gate views OU36lUIeQQPQ h354 wide and zoom. Re-examined: the gate is set well back behind a broad open dirt/paved forecourt-apron between the gate line and the carriageway, providing clear off-carriageway assembly space, not the 'narrow unpaved shoulder strip' the audit described. This qualifies L2. No separate pedestrian wicket distinct from the main leaf and no continuous rail to a crossing are confirmable, so not raised to L3; no marked pick-up/drop-off bay, so not L4. Audit's L1 falls to L2 on the gate-wide evidence; blind L2 upheld.

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

2026-09-04Audited

2027-03-07Re-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