Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideIndrayani International School & Jr College

S No 4, Bengaluru - Mumbai Hwy, Ambegaon Budruk, Pune, Maharashtra 411046, India18.45388, 73.82911audited 2026-09-04

36/100

Unsafeprovisional band

Unsafe. Very little on this road protects a child crossing to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 2 are missing entirely.

This road · 36

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

26.25points earned

71.95points we could see (72%)

36.48%provision

1exposure — local

36.48provision × exposure

→

36SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (72% 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 N 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 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

A speed hump in the zone

At least one proper speed-calming device sits in the school zone.

Partial

Also cited for this check

15 of 30 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points15 of 30

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

At least one legible sound speed hump (yellow-black striped) visible in the zone at the Spring Meadows society entrance on the school-frontage road (ulf-mRc6Vy_Y_h075_f90_trav.jpg). No hump/table visible within 30 m of the school gate on the direct approaches (gate frontage plain concrete with drainage grate), so L3 not met.

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 at the gate or along the observable frontage/approaches; carriageway surface is plain across multiple clear views. Relevant stretches were visible, so absence is assessable.

◑

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≈72%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Local street, walkable-edge basis. No continuous clear walkable edge: school-frontage side is a flush unseparated concrete apron/road shoulder used for parking, and opposite/adjacent stretches present compound walls, a blue construction hoarding and vegetation directly at the carriageway (permanent) with pedestrians on the carriageway. Edge exists but broken/blocked along most of frontage.

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≈62%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-zone warning sign, speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp identifiable on the observable approaches. Boards visible on the compound wall are school/informational signage, not traffic control. Approaches largely visible but some resolution/occlusion limits.

◑

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≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement decided on the two gate_wide views (NR4yj0lvOld3_h336_f90, 7-I8jbE6Zv0d_h305_f90). A continuous horizontal-slat frontage railing runs along the whole gate frontage, and the gate opens onto a large open paved compound (basketball court/playground) rather than directly onto the carriageway - a clear setback and railing giving substantial off-carriageway assembly space (L2). The audit's L1 characterisation ('narrow paved apron / minimal setback') understates the built form and falls. L3 is not reached: the gate_zoom (NR4yj0lvOld3_h336_f35) is aimed into the compound so a separate pedestrian opening is not confirmed, and no crossing exists to rail toward (P2=0). Two consistent clear views support 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 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.

02Lifts 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.

03Lifts 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).

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