Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideSymbiosis International School

Ishanya Campus, off Viman Nagar Road, Mhada Colony, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411014, India18.57044, 73.90753audited 2026-09-04

13/100

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 · 13

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

8.75points earned

65.5points we could see (66%)

13.4%provision

1exposure — local

13.4provision × exposure

→

13SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (66% 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 3-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 contextLow — 17/100 (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≈75%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device seen on the main-entrance frontage or its approaches: no hump, raised table, rumble strip, or transverse-bar markings near the gate (9TKmqQ1cU7qw_h112/h170/h350, QZdwawJxL5vw_h083). Only lane markings and a separating median are present, neither of which is a calming device. Road surface and both approaches are visible enough to treat calming as absent on the seen stretch.

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≈70%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra), refuge, or table-top/signalised crossing visible at or near the gate on the main frontage; the divided carriageway would require a refuge for any L3+ crossing but none is present. Gate frontage and approaches are visible, so no legible crossing is assessed as absent on the seen stretch.

◑

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

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The reads differ by one level (blind L2, audit L1); the deciding question is which frontage is graded. Because the main entrance is the service road (see main_entrance), the relevant walkable edge is that of the service road, which is broken/discontinuous: paved curb margins near the SYMBIOSIS SIS building (QouN03ULYWrR_h092, _h352_f90_gate_wide) give way to raw dust/gravel shoulders and an under-construction single shared surface elsewhere (NnPkzmkRwOV2_h092/h272, QouN03ULYWrR_h272) — a permanent/structural condition, not mere parked-vehicle occlusion. That is L1 (exists but broken along most of frontage), not L2. The blind read's continuous brick-paver footpath is on the divided-road PLAYGROUND frontage (9TKmqQ1cU7qw_h112/h170, QZdwawJxL5vw_h083), not the entrance, so it does not support L2 for the entrance. Blind read fell. Confidence MED: the service-road surface is under construction, so its settled permanent walkway state is uncertain, though its broken condition is repeatedly visible.

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 legible school-warning sign, compliant speed-limit sign/carriageway speed stamp, or named 2023-identity zone asset (transition/zone-start sign, fluorescent yellow-green faces, red-white school-zone markings, beacon hardware) identified on the main frontage. A blue regulatory/no-parking-type signpost is visible (9TKmqQ1cU7qw_h170) but is not a school-safety or speed asset. Decorative wall murals are not zone-identity assets. Small distant signage not fully resolvable, hence reduced observability.

◑

The gate itselfP5 · Gate environment

A small setback at the gate

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

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

2.5 of 10 points

LevelMinimal (L1)

Points2.5 of 10

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈50%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

The reads differ by one level (blind L2, audit L1); the deciding frontage is the service-road entrance. There the compound wall (with railing/hedge on top) fronts a narrow paved margin, but the assembly space is essentially the dusty carriageway edge and the gate opening itself is occluded by the parked Traveller van (QouN03ULYWrR_h352_f90_gate_wide / _f35_gate_zoom); no clear off-carriageway assembly setback, no separate pedestrian opening, no continuous rail gate-to-crossing, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay are resolvable. That supports only L1 (minimal setback / partial barrier), not the L2 the blind read gave — its clear setback reads off the divided-road playground footpath (9TKmqQ1cU7qw_h112, QZdwawJxL5vw_h083), which is not the entrance. Blind read fell. Confidence MED: the gate is van-occluded, capping observability.

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

2026-09-04Audited

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