Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideNarayanrao Sanas Vidyalaya

150, Dhayari Phata Rd, Wadgaon Budruk, Dhayari Phata, Pune, Maharashtra 411041, India18.45977, 73.81241audited 2026-08-06

10/100

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 · 10

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

8.75points earned

63points we could see (63%)

13.9%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

9.7provision × exposure

→

10SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (63% 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 an arterial road (Dhayari Road), on its W side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activity2 bus stops · 3 mapped shops 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 contextElevated — 60/100 (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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed control visible on the frontage. Road surface in front of the gate and along the arterial is plain asphalt with no humps, tables, rumble strips or markings in multiple clear 2026-02 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

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit read fell. The audit's sole L2 evidence was 'a legible zebra-marked crossing' in QdGKzHS_hR5y_h143_f90_trav.jpg; re-examination of that exact image shows a plain carriageway with shopfronts, parked two-wheelers and a pedestrian on a shopfront platform — no transverse crossing markings, no zebra, no refuge. Neither gate frontage (DJ3_h251, kk0Ex_h334) nor the road views show any marked crossing. No crossing in zone -> L0, matching the blind read. MED because dense traffic occludes portions of the running surface.

◑

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

NoneMinimal

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≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit read fell. Audit scored L0 ('none / children on carriageway'), but re-examination shows fragmentary raised walkable edge does exist in patches: a raised shopfront platform with steps on the left of mAkA2dE5N5pF_h203, a shopfront platform on the right of QdGKzHS_h143 (pedestrian walking on it), and a stepped shop edge on the right of kk0Ex_h024. These are broken/blocked by driveways, steps and the gateless compound-wall stretch, and children/pedestrians are on the carriageway at the gate frontage, but a broken raised edge is present along much of the frontage -> L1, not L0. No continuous usable footpath, so not L2. Observability blended to 0.6 (reads differed 0.55/0.65, within tolerance).

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp or zone-identity asset visible. Only commercial hoardings/banners (advertising, admissions banners) present on the frontage.

◑

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≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Blind read fell. The blind's L2 rested on an 'open forecourt/assembly area off the running road' in the kk0Ex zoom; re-examination shows the compound wall/old tile-roofed structure sits at or very close to the road edge, with only a narrow margin that is occupied by queued share-autos and parked two-wheelers (momentary, non-scoring). At the DJ3 frontage the mural compound wall meets the road with buses/cars queued directly against it. No clear built off-carriageway assembly setback or railing to a crossing is resolvable; the compound wall reads as a minimal setback / partial barrier -> L1, matching the audit. No separate pedestrian opening or marked pick-up bay visible, so not L3/L4.

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

2026-08-06Audited

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