Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideDeccan Education Society's New English School(NEST)

Tilak Rd, Sadashiv Peth, Pune, Maharashtra 411030, India18.51127, 73.84526audited 2026-08-06

22/100

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 · 22

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

20points earned

64points we could see (64%)

31.2%provision

0.7exposure — arterial

21.9provision × exposure

→

22SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (64% 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 an arterial road (Lokmanya Tilak Marg), on its SW side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 8-leg junction

Street activity6 mapped shops 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 — 59/100 (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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Frontage carriageway asphalt reads flat and continuous across all four frontage views; no speed hump, table, rumble strip or transverse markings visible in the zone or at the frontage. No raised element at the perimeter.

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≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise) visible on the frontage carriageway in either direction; road surface reads plain asphalt. Near lane is partly privacy-blurred but mid and far surface are visible. No refuge island present on this undivided road.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

GoodBasic

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

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈70%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

School/wall side is unambiguously a continuous raised footpath (brick paving behind a continuous yellow-black tubular railing), consistent across all frontage frames = L2 at HIGH. The audit's L3 (both sides continuous) does not hold: the opposite side shows shopfronts abutting the carriageway with a bus-shelter apron and near-kerb privacy blur, so a continuous RAISED footpath on the opposite side cannot be confirmed at the HIGH confidence L3 requires. Audit read fell to L2 on opposite-side continuity.

◑

Being seen and expectedP4 · Signage & zone identity

One school-warning sign

A single school-warning sign — not the full set.

Partial⟳ Corrected in review

BasicMinimal

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

Also cited for this check

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈55%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

One triangular school/pedestrian warning sign is confirmable at the frontage (school-wall side) = L1. The audit's L2 (legible school warnings on BOTH approaches) is not demonstrated: both gate panoramas view essentially the same single frontage sign from opposite directions, and no distinct second-approach school warning is resolvable. The red-circle '25' speed disc lies in a side commercial lane (tZCeUunDKU3t: shopfronts 'SS Mobile'/'Frost & Toast'), not on the arterial frontage, so it earns no frontage speed credit; no 2023-identity zone asset confirmed. Audit read fell to L1.

◑

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The frontage presents a clear setback: a compound wall fronted the full length by a wide raised footpath and a continuous yellow-black railing between footpath and carriageway, giving off-carriageway assembly space = L2. The audit's L1/LOW conditioned this on resolving the exact gate leaf, but the assembly-space assessment does not require pinpointing the leaf — the raised footpath and railing are continuous along the whole walled frontage where the gate must sit. No separate pedestrian opening or rail-to-crossing run is resolvable (canopy screening; no crossing identified per P2), so not L3. Audit read rose to L2. Observability gap (blind 0.5 vs audit 0.3, 0.2) is the unresolved discrete gate leaf, screened by tree canopy, versus the clearly-resolved frontage setback; final held at 0.5.

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