Schools / Pune

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideShree Shivaji Military Preparatory Primary School

GVJ7+4P4, Sangamvadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411001, India18.53026, 73.86432audited 2026-08-06

21/100

Unsafeprovisional band

Unsafe. Very little on this road protects a child crossing to the gate.

Of the five things we check, 3 are missing entirely.

This road · 21

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

17.5points earned

61.25points we could see (61%)

28.6%provision

0.75exposure — arterial

21.4provision × exposure

→

21SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (61% 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 (Raja Bahadur Mill Marg), on its N side

Junctionthe gate area sits at a 9-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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No physical speed-control device (hump, table, rumble strip or marking) visible on the frontage carriageway on either approach; asphalt/paver surface runs smooth past the compound. Fast divided arterial. Foregrounds partly blurred, so some near-gate surface unassessable.

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≈65%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked pedestrian crossing (zebra or otherwise) visible along the frontage or near the entrance; pedestrians observed crossing the open carriageway with no markings near the underpass. Raised median exists but no associated marked crossing seen.

◑

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

A footpath on one side

A continuous, usable walking edge runs along one side.

Partial

Also cited for this check

12.5 of 25 points

LevelBasic (L2)

Points12.5 of 25

ConfidenceMed

Coverage seen≈60%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

School-side edge shows a continuous raised, paved footpath running along the white compound wall (jBKk8OtFNwPD_h333_f35_gate_zoom, jBKk8OtFNwPD_h009_f90_road, qAEpxUoG5ETW_h237_f90_trav) - continuous usable on the near/school side (L2). Opposite carriageway side not clearly enough resolved to confirm a continuous raised footpath, so L3 not supported; no gate-to-crossing physical separation observed.

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 visible on either approach. Only a blue 'No Parking' regulatory sign seen near the frontage (jBKk8OtFNwPD_h009_f90_road, I4kC4F0SLGtc_h009_f90_road); one signboard faces away and is unreadable. No speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp, or any 2023 school-zone identity asset 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.

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

Reads disagreed (blind L2, audit L1). Decided by the two gate-wide panos and the gate zoom. The compound sits behind a continuous white wall + chain-link fence, and a broad paved footpath/setback runs the full length of the frontage between wall and carriageway in every gate view, giving clear off-carriageway assembly space - the L2 condition. Because that setback is continuous along the whole frontage, the assembly space holds wherever the gate opening is, so the audit's downgrade to L1 on the ground that the exact gate spot is unresolved does not hold: the audit read fell. The gate leaf itself is not resolved (wall reads continuous), so a separate pedestrian opening / continuous gate-to-crossing rail (L3) cannot be confirmed, and no marked pick-up/drop-off bay is visible (no L4). Observability gap (blind 0.5 vs audit 0.3, >0.15): the frontage setback segment is well covered across multiple consistent views, while the localized gate-opening segment is unresolved - the gap is that gate-opening segment, which the audit weighted more heavily; final 0.5. L2 does not require HIGH confidence.

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