Schools / Delhi

Road-environment audit · SSI v0.3

The road outsideORCHIDS The International School - CBSE School in Dwarka Sector 19

near Sector 19, Goyla, Dwarka, New Delhi, Delhi, 110071, India28.58607, 77.01297audited 2026-08-06

3/100

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, 4 are missing entirely.

This road · 3

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

2.5points earned

79.5points we could see (80%)

3.1%provision

1exposure — local

3.1provision × exposure

→

3SSI · rounded to nearest · v0.3

Only what the imagery could actually resolve is scored (80% 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

Satellite view of the same area — Satellite · © Google · retrieved 2026-08-13 (capture date not published by the imagery API)

FrontageThe gate opens onto a local street, on its S 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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No hump, table, rumble strip or calming marking anywhere. Frontage is unpaved earth (cannot carry markings); both near-gate approaches and the far concrete zone show none.

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≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No marked crossing, zebra, refuge or remnant on either approach; unpaved frontage precludes markings, and none in the far zone.

Walking without stepping into trafficP3 · Footpath & separation

No footpath — children share the road

No usable walking edge; children walk in the traffic lane.

Absent⟳ Corrected in review

NoneNone

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

Also cited for this check

0 of 25 points

LevelNone (L0)

Points0 of 25

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈78%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ L0 (audit) vs L1 (blind). Deciding frames: rIRnuKrD1I68_h190_f90_road.jpg, BFnU-JD6lY13_h190_f90_trav.jpg, t9CMPubOJJZH_h010_f90_trav.jpg and the far-zone L9phm4SLsds0/jNqC2X3PbYnG pairs. Re-examined only these: there is no kerb, demarcation or surface change between an 'edge' and the carriageway; compound walls and building faces meet the running surface directly, so the 'earthen margin' the blind read credited is the same shared surface, not a footpath facility that 'exists but is broken'. No walking provision exists; pedestrians share the carriageway. Blind L1 fell; final L0. Observability gap small (0.75 vs 0.80), settled 0.78.

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

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationConfirmed — both readers agreed

The full reasoning

No school-warning sign, speed-limit sign, carriageway speed stamp or 2023 zone-identity asset on either approach. Only commercial hoardings (SS Print Hub, Unique Lehenga, 2/3-BHK) and the school's own name/identity boards, which are not road signage.

◑

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

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

ConfidenceHigh

Coverage seen≈80%

VerificationCorrected in the second reading

The full reasoning

Reads differ L2 (audit) vs L1 (blind). Deciding frame: rIRnuKrD1I68_h107_f90_gate_wide.jpg (street interface), with CAoSFkNJSE0w_h289_f90_road.jpg (internal forecourt). The audit awarded L2 by crediting 'off-carriageway assembly space' from the gated internal forecourt in the 2023-09 user photosphere. But P5's ladder is street-side oriented (L3 = separate pedestrian wicket / continuous rail to crossing; L4 = drop-off bay >=20 m from gate), so the qualifying L2 setback/assembly space must be on the assessed public frontage. Street-side, the gate sits at the boundary-wall line with only a minimal apron and the ornamental pillared gateway as a partial feature = L1 (minimal setback/partial barrier); the private internal forecourt is not creditable as street-side assembly space. Audit L2 fell; final L1 (matches blind read). Observability gap >0.15 (audit 0.6 vs blind 0.9) is the two 2023-09 CAoSFkNJSE0w interior/forecourt frames, counted toward gate coverage by the blind read but largely set aside by the audit as campus-court views; settled 0.8 as the street-side interface is clearly captured in the 2026-03 gate_wide and zoom.

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