Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideStella Maris School

Survey Number 2, Dhanvantari Colony, Wadgaon Sheri, Pune, Maharashtra 411014, India18.54605, 73.92395audited 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

65.1points we could see (65%)

17.3%provision

0.85exposure — collector

14.7provision × exposure

→

15SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

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.

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 collector road (Ganesh Nagar Road), on its E side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-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 — 33/100 (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≈72%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device visible in the zone. Collector frontage (pa560 h054/h234) and gate approach show plain asphalt with no humps, tables, rumble strips or markings. Narrower approach lanes likewise show no devices.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra/table-top) visible anywhere on the frontage or gate approaches. Carriageway shows no crossing markings; no refuge island.

◑

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

Blind L1 vs audit L0. Decided from the unobstructed collector-frontage views: a built paved footpath IS present in the imagery - a tiled block-paver path along the shop-side frontage (h234) and a paver strip running along the school boundary wall (h151_gate_wide) - but it is discontinuous, broken by tree-pits/planting strips and driveways, and does not run continuously along one side (so short of L2). The audit's 'not confirmed present / informal shoulder / L0' falls, because permanent built footpath surface is visibly present though broken along most of the frontage. Level set to L1 (exists but broken along most of frontage, permanent causes). Parked vehicles/scooters excluded as momentary. Collector-class raised-footpath expectation not met continuously.

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

No school-zone signs

Drivers get no warning that a school gate is here.

Absent

0 of 10 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning traffic sign, no speed-limit sign and no carriageway speed stamp visible on either approach. Compound-wall murals and 'WELCOME'/'SCHOOL' lettering are school identity paint, not traffic signage. A blue post-mounted board near the corner is not resolvable as a school warning or speed sign.

◑

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.

Also cited for this check

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Blind L2 vs audit L1 (LOW). The audit downgraded to L1 because the memorial hoarding + parked SUV obscure the gate leaf in the gate_zoom. However the L2-qualifying built form is readable in unobstructed views: a continuous boundary wall topped by grille railing, set back from the carriageway with a paved/planted margin giving off-carriageway assembly space (h054_road, h151_gate_wide, and the corner MOXMtdASnB h098). The gate does not open directly onto the carriageway (rules out L0), and the setback is clearly more than a minimal barrier (beyond L1). L3 is not supported - no separate pedestrian opening or continuous rail-to-crossing is resolvable through the obstruction, and both reads agree L3 fails. Audit's LOW-confidence L1 falls; final L2 at MED confidence (L2 does not require HIGH).

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