Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsidePetals Kids Preschool & Daycare - Preschool In Mahalunge / Daycare In Mahalunge

VTP Town Square, Shop No G12, Sr, Godrej Meadows, Mahalunge, Pune, Maharashtra 411045, India18.56633, 73.73995audited 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.

11.25points earned

77.25points we could see (77%)

14.6%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

10.9provision × 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

FrontageThe gate opens onto an arterial road (Mhalunge - Nande Road), on its N side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 4-leg junction

Street activity2 bus stops 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 — 57/100 (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

0 of 30 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 30

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device (hump, table, rumble strip) visible anywhere in the zone, including on the road surface immediately in front of the gate. Carriageway is wide and open; several stretches freshly paved, others dirt/under construction. Relevant surfaces were visible, so absence is a genuine observation, not merely unseen.

Getting across the roadP2 · Safe crossing

No safe place to cross

No marked or raised pedestrian crossing at or near the gate.

Absent

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) visible on the frontage or at the gate. Only lane/centre-line markings on the paved sections; no crossing markings, refuge, or table-top crossing observed. Road surface near gate was visible.

◑

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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

Arterial: raised footpath required. Continuous raised footpath is absent along most of the frontage - the gate area and much of the zone present bare dirt/earthen shoulders, construction spoil and open ground where pedestrians walk on or beside the carriageway. Fragmentary kerbed/raised edge exists only along the apartment stretch, so a footpath exists but is broken/discontinuous over most of the frontage.

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No legible school-warning sign, speed-limit sign or carriageway speed stamp confirmed. A diamond warning-sign board is mounted near the gate but its face is blank/turned away and unreadable, so no school-warning content can be credited. Numerous commercial billboards present but these are not traffic signage. No 2023-identity assets 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.

5 of 10 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Disagreement decided by the two Nl7dDEPbbNZY gate views. Both f35 zoom and f90 wide show a low horizontal-rail road-edge fence running along the frontage plus a paved plaza forecourt set back from the carriageway, i.e. the gate does not open directly onto the road and there is a railing giving off-carriageway assembly space = L2. The audit read (L1, LOW confidence) claimed no railing/defined assembly space with parking encroaching to the steps; the railing and paved setback are in fact clearly present, and the parked car/van are a momentary condition, not built form. Audit read falls to the imagery; blind L2 upheld. No distinct separate pedestrian opening or continuous rail gate-to-crossing, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay, so no L3+. L2 does not require HIGH; confidence MED. Observability settled at 0.8 (gap from audit 0.6 stems from its entrance-identity discounting, but the gate built form is clearly imaged in two views).

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