Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideNirmala Convent School

near, Gulmohar complex, Nirmalwadi, Kharadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411014, India18.55318, 73.94488audited 2026-09-04

13/100

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 · 13

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

11.25points earned

73.75points we could see (74%)

15.3%provision

0.85exposure — collector

13.0provision × exposure

→

13SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (74% 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 (Marvel Citrine Road), on its E side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 5-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 — 37/100 (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 hump, table, rumble strip or other physical speed-control device visible on the frontage in front of the gate or along either approach; carriageway surface continuous and flat where observable.

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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise), refuge or crossing remnant visible near the gate or along the frontage in any view.

◑

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

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

A paved tiled strip fronts the school compound wall, but it is discontinuous: the adjacent open lot beside the school has no footpath, and further approach segments show bare/dusty edges with pedestrians walking on the carriageway. Broken/discontinuous built walkable edge along most of frontage (permanent causes).

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

ConfidenceLow

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Yellow diamond warning signs on poles at the approaches, but content not legible at available resolution; cannot confirm any is a school-specific warning. No compliant speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp, or 2023-identity zone asset observed.

◑

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

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Audit read (L1, MED) falls. Both gate-wide panoramas (U2cnEfnld7kQ_h092_f90_gate_wide and Zfx_XaQSmyXL_h102_f90_gate_wide) show the compound wall set back from the carriageway with a paved tiled apron and a raised curb in front of the frontage, and the gate opening into an enclosed walled yard - a clear setback giving off-carriageway assembly space (L2). The audit's L1 ('minimal setback', 'unpaved dirt at the entrance') conflated the adjacent vacant dirt lot to the north with the gate frontage itself, which is paved and curbed. No separate pedestrian opening or continuous rail gate-to-crossing is resolvable (and no crossing exists, P2=L0), so L3 is not met. The setback attribute is clearly visible across two consistent panoramas, supporting HIGH; the partial obstruction (parked car, laundry) affects only the gate zooms, not the setback finding. Blind read confirmed.

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