Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGlobal public school,Wadkinala

CXHH+5JH, Wadakinala, Wadaki, Maharashtra 412308, India18.42818, 73.97945audited 2026-09-04

14/100

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 · 14

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

11.25points earned

82.25points we could see (82%)

13.7%provision

1exposure — local

13.7provision × exposure

→

14SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (82% 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 S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 8-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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device on the frontage lane: no hump, table, rumble strip or transverse marking visible on either gate approach. Plain concrete surface throughout. Approaches clearly seen.

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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing anywhere in the zone; no refuge. Narrow single-lane lane with unmarked earthen edges. Both approaches to the gate visible.

◑

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.

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads disagree (audit L0, blind L1). Decided on the frontage road views: a walkable earthen shoulder does exist alongside the concrete strip on both sides, but is broken/blocked by permanent causes (rubble and debris mounds, vegetation, shop structures abutting the edge), and pedestrians are seen on the carriageway. For a local street the standard is a continuous clear walkable edge, not a built/kerbed footpath; an edge that exists but is broken along most of the frontage is L1, not L0. Audit's L0 fell by applying a built-footpath test that does not govern local streets. Blind read upheld.

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≈85%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No traffic/school signage: no school-warning sign, no speed-limit sign, no zone-identity asset on either approach. Only the school's own advertising banner and commercial hoardings present.

◑

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≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads disagree (audit L1, blind L2). Decided on the two gate panos: the building sits well back from the lane behind a large open forecourt, so the gate does not open onto the carriageway and substantial off-carriageway assembly space exists. L2 requires a clear setback OR a railing; a delineated/paved space is not required. Audit under-graded to L1 by treating the setback as minimal and demanding a built barrier that L2 does not require. No separate pedestrian opening, continuous rail, or marked drop-off bay is visible, so L3+ is not reached. Blind read upheld. MED confidence retained (single frontage aspect, palm-tree occlusion) - immaterial as 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