Schools / Jaipur

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGovernment Senior Secondary School, Sukhpuriya

QRMF+C9G, Sukhpuria, Govardhan Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022, India26.78357, 75.82345audited 2026-08-08

26/100

Unsafeprovisional band

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

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

This road · 26

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

17.5points earned

67points we could see (67%)

26.1%provision

1exposure — local

26.1provision × exposure

→

26SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (67% 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 SW side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

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

Crash record3 road deaths within 500 m of the gate; 3 of the recorded crashes fell on school days, 7 am–6 pm (Jaipur Police crash data)

Exposure contextModerate — 32/100. 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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No speed hump, raised table, or rumble device seen on the gate frontage or on any visible approach; the frontage is unpaved/dusty and the surrounding lanes carry no calming devices. Observed stretches cover the near-gate area and several lanes but not every approach in full. Level 0 on what is visible.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A marked crossing in the zone

A legible marked crossing is present in the school zone.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

BasicBasic

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

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Corrected to L2; the blind read fell. Two legible marked zebra crossings sit within the zone — KiSzzC6 h205 (~152 m, main junction) and d1uW h144 (~40 m, arterial median gap) — both showing crisp, un-faded white stripes; they are permanent paint, not momentary, so not struck. Methodology L2 = 'legible marked crossing in zone'; gate-proximity enters only at L3 ('within 20 m of gate'), so distance-from-gate does not cap a legible in-zone crossing at L1. The blind read's 'legible-but-far-from-gate = L1' conflated the L2 and L3 criteria. L3 is not met: no crossing within 20 m and none on the gate's local frontage. MED confidence retained because the crossings are on the adjacent arterial rather than the gate's local carriageway — a positional nuance that does not defeat L2 (which does not require HIGH).

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

No usable walking edge; children walk in the traffic lane.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

NoneNone

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≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Corrected to L0; the blind read fell. Local-street standard is a continuous clear walkable edge. No built footpath and no distinct/delineated walkable edge exists anywhere on the frontage or approaches: the 2026-04 dry-season frontage (ldHGaWAWEHOE h214) is an unpaved dusty carriageway whose verge is undifferentiated dust merging into the road, and pedestrians are directly observed walking on the lane/carriageway (lBgSIXcs h236; rYK9 h236/h056) — L0's 'none / children on carriageway'. The blind read's L1 over-credited informal dust/grass verges as an 'edge that exists but is broken'; no discernible walkable-edge feature is present, only shared unpaved ground. Seasonal 2022-08 monsoon vegetation and movable clutter (carts, rubble, metal container) excluded as non-permanent. Multiple clear consistent views support L0 (HIGH). Observability settled 0.70 between the reads (0.75 audit / 0.6 blind).

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No road school-warning sign and no compliant speed-limit sign (or carriageway speed stamp) identifiable at the gate or on visible approaches. The boards present on the compound wall are school photo-display/identity boards, not road signage; the nearby arterial carries only direction-sign gantries and a police-chowki board (d1uW h144). No qualifying school-zone signage or 2023-identity asset seen in view.

◑

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

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Gate is set back behind a low compound wall carrying a continuous decorative metal boundary railing along the frontage, with a dusty off-carriageway forecourt in front providing assembly space (ldHGaWAWEHOE h214 wide+zoom) -> clear setback/railing giving off-carriageway assembly space, L2. A separate pedestrian opening cannot be confirmed at this resolution and there is no adjacent crossing to rail to, so L3 is not met (would require HIGH confidence).

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

2026-08-08Audited

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