School Safety Index
DELHI · JAIPUR · PUNE
Schools / Pune
Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (65% of the rubric here); the rest is left uncounted rather than guessed. A road with full protective infrastructure scores near 100.
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 data © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), retrieved 13 Aug 2026 · crash data: Jaipur Police · derivations: `exposure_v1` on the Data page.
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.
No speed hump, table or rumble strip on the approach — vehicles reach the gate at full speed.
No speed humps, tables, or rumble/markings visible on the frontage carriageway across multiple 2026-02 views near and beyond the gate.
No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.
No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise) visible anywhere along the local-street frontage or at the gate.
A walking edge exists but is broken or blocked for most of the frontage.
Local street: a paved paver-block walkable edge exists at the gate forecourt and in short stretches along the boundary wall, but it is broken/discontinuous with unpaved dirt shoulders, vegetation, and a ditch/water body along most of the frontage; opposite edge is unpaved vegetation.
Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.
No school warning signs, no speed-limit signs, and no school-zone identity assets visible on the frontage. A blue circular board at the gate is a name/info board, not a traffic sign; a 'Swachh Survekshan' wall mural on the separate wider road is not a traffic sign.
A clear setback or railing gives room to gather off the carriageway.
An independent second reader changed this — the two readings disagreed, and the evidence below settled it.
Disagreement decided by 20pRPLNdVrzn_h064_f90_trav and 2WrJivJp8LhV_h055_f90_road: both clearly show a substantial paver-block forecourt/apron set between the white railing gate and the carriageway, giving genuine off-carriageway assembly space (L2) rather than a merely minimal buffer (L1). The audit's L1 ("modest paved buffer, no clear off-carriageway forecourt") falls; the blind's L2 is upheld. The h330 gate_wide/gate_zoom frames point at a blank boundary-wall section, not the gate, so they neither help nor resolve L3. No separate pedestrian-only opening is resolvable and there is no crossing anywhere (P2=L0), so continuous rail gate-to-crossing is impossible; L3 not reached. Final L2, MED confidence (two consistent views on the setback; exact forecourt extent is angle-dependent).
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.
Speed humps near schools roughly halve child-pedestrian injury odds (Tester 2004); 30 km/h calmed zones ≈ 40% fewer casualties (Grundy 2009).
Raised crossings cut vehicle speeds at the exact conflict point.
A continuous footpath keeps children off the carriageway on the approach, not only at the gate.
The zone must announce itself to drivers before the gate.
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.
Every published road is re-read every six months, or as soon as new Street View imagery lands, or on a sustained dispute.
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