Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideMindseed Preschool & Daycare - Nigdi, Pune

Bungalow Plot No, 73, Ganesh Talav Road Corner of, Hutatma Chowk, Sector No. 26, Pradhikaran, Nigdi, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, Maharashtra 411044, India18.65368, 73.76438audited 2026-08-06

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.

30points earned

62.75points we could see (63%)

47.8%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

35.9provision × exposure

→

36SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (63% 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 (Agrasen Maharaj Marg), on its W 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 contextElevated — 52/100 (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

No speed hump, raised table, or rumble device seen at the entrance approaches or along the visible frontage stretch. Carriageway surface reads as continuous smooth asphalt in all traversal and road views. Visible stretches assessed; no physical speed-control device present in them.

◑

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

A marked crossing in the zone

A legible marked crossing is present in the school zone.

Partial

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

One legible marked zebra crossing visible in the zone (at a covered-gateway building/junction, RmVd view). No marked crossing within 20 m of the identified entrance; frontage edge there is a coloured (red) pedestrian/cycle strip, not a carriageway crossing. Median exists (divided road) so a refuge is present at the median line, but the crossing is far from the gate, so no L3.

◑

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

BasicBasic

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≈65%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Corrected down from the blind L3 to L2. The school-frontage side carries a continuous usable raised red-paver footpath/cycle track (qcDuG h185/h344), which clearly establishes L2. But the opposite side is not continuously usable at HIGH confidence: inIUsLCKDGkz_h286 shows an informal dusty verge with no paved footpath along one stretch, and inIUsLCKDGkz_h106 shows a dug-up/broken edge on that side. These are permanent-condition (not parked-vehicle/cart) failures of both-sides continuity, so the blind read's L3 does not survive. L3 requires HIGH confidence on the both-sides qualifying attribute, which is not met.

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≈55%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning sign, no compliant speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp, and no 2023-identity zone asset identified along either approach in the visible frontage. Only generic directional/street signboards seen. Approaches partly readable; no qualifying signage present in what is visible.

◑

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

Corrected up from the audit L1 to L2. The 2023-01 gate views (_jFvDp93-7Hf h227 wide/zoom) directly show the mindseed doorway set back behind a paved apron/footpath giving clear off-carriageway assembly space, plus a low compound wall/railing along the frontage - meeting L2. No distinct separate pedestrian opening and no continuous rail gate-to-crossing resolve, so not L3; no marked pick-up/drop-off bay, so not L4. The setback is directly observed, not inferred, and L2 does not require HIGH confidence, so the audit's LOW-confidence downgrade to L1 was unwarranted. The audit correctly flags that 2026-03 construction obscures current re-confirmation, which caps confidence at MED (single 2023-01 viewpoint) and lowers observability; observability gap (blind 0.6 vs audit 0.35) is the 2026-03 construction obscuring the current gate, settled 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