Schools / Delhi

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideGanga International School, Rohini

pocket 8, Sector 21, Rohini, New Delhi, Delhi, 110086, India28.71300, 77.06486audited 2026-08-06

16/100

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 · 16

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

11.25points earned

70.75points we could see (71%)

15.9%provision

1exposure — local

15.9provision × exposure

→

16SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (71% 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

Satellite view of the same area — Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)

FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its NW 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 contextLow — 17/100 (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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device of any kind on the frontage carriageway. Both approaches to the gate are seen along the road axis (h128 and h308) from four panoramas spanning about 33 m north-west to 41 m south-east of the school, with clear sight lines a further 80-100 m in each direction: the surface is plain worn asphalt with no hump, table, rumble strip, transverse bar marking or ramp profile anywhere, and no raised table at the gate itself. The lighter-toned paved apron in front of the school frontage is a surface-material change, not a raised table - no transverse ramp edges span the carriageway. Observability held at 0.7 because the outer thirds of the zone along the frontage road are not imaged at close range and a low, badly worn device at distance would not resolve. The yellow and blue barricades standing near the gate are movable and not scored.

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 pedestrian crossing provision. The frontage carriageway carries no markings at all - no zebra, no faded remnant, not even a centre line - in any of the eight frontage views, and the surface directly across from the gate is plain paving. No refuge island, no signal, no raised crossing. The white striped banding visible at the left of fp6ksSHqudZj_h128 is a step/ramp nosing on a private shop plinth set well back from the carriageway, not a crossing. Observability 0.7: near-gate carriageway is clearly readable in four views, but the outer zone along the frontage is unimaged.

◑

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

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street, so assessed as continuous clear walkable edge on permanent built form only. A walkable edge exists in identifiable form but is broken along most of the frontage by permanent causes. School side: a broad paved apron fronts the boundary wall and gate, but it carries no kerb or level change separating it from the running carriageway and, continuing north-west, degrades into building plinths at differing heights broken by steps and vehicle ramps. Opposite side: a low compound wall topped with metal railing runs behind a strip that is kerbed and paved in places but elsewhere is bare dirt, rubble and planted tree pits, with no consistent surface or width. Neither side offers a continuous usable walkable edge, so L2 is not met; the edge is not wholly absent, so L1 rather than L0. Observability 0.6 - both edges are partly occluded by parked vehicles and dense roadside trees, and the outer frontage is unimaged. Parked cars, scooters and carts were disregarded per the permanent-form rule.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No legible school warning sign identified on either approach, and no speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp anywhere on the frontage - therefore no speed value to record. No 2023-identity assets: no transition or zone-start sign, no fluorescent yellow-green sign faces, no red-white school-zone carriageway markings, no beacon hardware. One ambiguity flagged for the verify pass: jQpUOvsnO_hZ_h308 shows a small yellow diamond plate on a pole on the far side of the road (right of frame, near the buildings); the shape is consistent with a warning sign but the pictogram does not resolve at f90 and it cannot be confirmed as a school warning. Per the LOW-confidence rule on that single element the lower candidate level is taken, giving L0. Observability 0.55 - sign-sized objects are marginal at 90 degree fov from 20-40 m, and continuous dense tree canopy along both edges is exactly where such signs would be mounted.

◑

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

BasicBasic

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≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Final level L2, matching both reads, but the audit read's supporting evidence, confidence and observability all fall. The audit awarded L2 HIGH on a gate 'set back on a raised forecourt/plinth' at observability 1.0. Re-examined xRwRu6f05SoO_h269_f35_gate_zoom and xRwRu6f05SoO_h269_f90_gate_wide at enlargement: the forecourt is a flat, continuous paved surface running from the gate threshold out to the carriageway with no kerb, no step and no level change anywhere across it. The only raised element in frame is the plinth at the base of the compound wall and guard post to the right of the gate, which does not span the gate frontage. The 'raised forecourt/plinth' finding is contradicted by the imagery and the audit's HIGH confidence falls with it; the blind read's description of an undelineated apron is upheld. L2 nonetheless stands on the other limb of the condition: the setback itself is real, permanent and substantial - vans stand on the apron with room for pedestrians to circulate behind them - so off-carriageway assembly space exists in built form even though nothing delineates it. Final confidence MED, because that space is undelineated and trafficked. L3 correctly withheld by both reads: no separate pedestrian opening resolves at the HIGH confidence L3 requires, and no continuous rail can run gate-to-crossing when P2 is L0 and no crossing exists. Observability settled at 0.80 against the audit's 1.0 - a gap of 0.20. The audit's 1.0 is not defensible on its own record, since the same note reports the forecourt partly occupied and occluded by standing vans; the segments unobserved are the ground plane behind the vans and the far end of the apron where it meets the carriageway. Separately noted: the audit characterised the yellow structures at the gate as a 'guard booth'. The enlargement shows they are wheeled units on castors, school-branded barricade or queue shelters, hence movable. The audit did list them as momentary and did not score them, so no correction to the level follows, but the mischaracterisation is recorded because an L2 awarded on a 'railing giving off-carriageway assembly space' must never rest on that line of barricades.

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