Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSaraswati English Medium School

Kesnand Rd, Kale Odha, Wagholi, Pune, Maharashtra 412207, India18.57972, 73.99037audited 2026-08-06

5/100

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, 4 are missing entirely.

This road · 5

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

5points earned

76.5points we could see (76%)

6.5%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

4.6provision × exposure

→

5SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (76% of the rubric here); the rest is left uncounted rather than guessed. A road with full protective infrastructure scores near 100.

◷

Read from 3.7-year-old imagery (captured 2023-01)

Street View here has not been refreshed since then, so the road may have changed. The score reflects what that imagery shows; this road is on the re-audit queue and will be re-read when newer imagery is available.

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, on its S side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-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 contextElevated — 52/100 (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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control devices of any kind visible along the frontage or approaches - carriageway is continuous smooth asphalt in all travel views, no humps, tables, rumble strips or transverse bar markings. Relevant stretches were clearly seen from multiple panos, so absence is observed.

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise) visible anywhere on the frontage or approaches; no refuge island. Wide undivided carriageway would require a refuge for L3+. Carriageway surface clearly seen across several views with no crossing markings.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

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

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

Road is collector+/arterial so a raised footpath is required. None exists: both edges of the frontage are unpaved dirt/gravel shoulders throughout, with pedestrians walking on the loose ground and at the carriageway edge. No continuous raised walkable footpath on either side.

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning signs, no speed-limit signs and no carriageway speed stamps visible on either approach or at the frontage. Only commercial billboards, hoardings and shop boards are present. Frontage and both approaches reasonably surveyed.

◑

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.

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Re-examined the two gate frames (lSgF6TV9P6Zo h215 zoom and wide), which decide this parameter. The building frontage sits well back from the carriageway across a large open unpaved lot, giving substantial off-carriageway assembly space (clear setback) - supporting L2. The audit's L1 falls: its 'doorway a step above road level with a truck against the frontage and no setback' misreads the scene; the truck is a passing/foreground vehicle on the road, and the frontage is plainly set back behind the open lot. No railing, no separate pedestrian opening discernible in zoom, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay, so L3/L4 are not reached. Single cross-carriageway vantage with partial occlusion holds confidence at MED; 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

2026-08-06Audited

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