Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsidesanskar public Sr. Sec. school

42,Ganga Vihar , road, 17, Sikar Rd, Ganga Vihar Colony, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001, India26.99672, 75.80017audited 2026-08-06

11/100

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 · 11

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

8.75points earned

76.75points we could see (77%)

11.4%provision

1exposure — local

11.4provision × exposure

→

11SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (77% 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 · red = fatal-crash points (Jaipur Police)

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 SW side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 3-leg junction

Street activityno bus stop or shops mapped within 150 m (OpenStreetMap)

Crash recordno road death within 500 m of the gate in the Jaipur Police crash data

Exposure contextLow — 17/100. 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 speed hump, table, rumble strip or traffic-calming marking visible anywhere in the zone. Both gate approaches (YZoWJH/UgHTDy road views, N and S) and traverse points at ~31 m, ~58 m and ~152 m all show plain concrete/dirt running surface with no devices.

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/painted) and no refuge anywhere in the zone; carriageway surface is clearly visible in multiple near-gate and traverse views with no crossing markings. Single narrow undivided lane, so no refuge applicable.

◑

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

MinimalMinimal

An independent second reader changed this — the two readings disagreed, and the evidence below settled it.

Also cited for this check

6.25 of 25 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points6.25 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈75%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The two reads split L0 (blind) vs L1 (audit). Deciding images re-examined: kSFQ_h141 shows a genuine raised tiled walkable margin fronting the pink building; kSFQ_h321 shows a park-bench platform on a paved margin along a compound wall; YZoWJH_h232/TRQGKMvsAvAT_h172 show otla plinths in front of the near frontages; while rJzL and hHCy peripheral frames show bare dirt/rubble margins and stone-walled edges with no footpath. A built walkable edge therefore EXISTS but is broken/discontinuous along most of the frontage — the L1 definition — not 'none' (L0), and clearly not continuously usable on any side (L2 refuted). The blind L0 read falls: it collapsed discontinuous-but-present built margins into 'none' and leaned partly on movable brick rubble, which P3 (permanent built condition only) excludes; on permanent form alone the edge exists-but-broken. Final L1. Observability 0.7/0.8 → settled 0.75; the gap is the less-covered ~60-150 m periphery (part 2022 imagery).

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school warning sign, no speed-limit sign, and no 2023 zone-identity asset visible on either approach or through the zone. Only text present is painted commercial wall advertising (e.g. 'BACHPAN KID[S]', 'ENGL...' preschool/coaching ads on boundary walls at ~152 m, a 'SCHOLAR...' branded vehicle at ~31 m) — not regulatory or warning signage.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

A little setback or partial barrier — limited space off the road.

Partial

Also cited for this check

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Built form: candidate openings (green ornate gate, wooden/curtained doorways) give onto raised plinths/steps at the lane edge — a minimal setback only, no clear off-carriageway assembly space, no pedestrian-channelling railing gate-to-crossing, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay. Consistent minimal-plinth frontage character across the near frontage supports L1; exact school gate identity is LOW so scored conservatively.

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