正在加载地图…
南非
约翰内斯堡
城市选择
选择一个城市
数字是全球统一尺度的研究估算；R 表示研究中。所有内容均非旅行建议。
看看这里怎么样
找到心仪的酒店了？订房前，先看看周边区域。
搜索服务政策
点击搜索会把查询内容和所选城市发送给 OpenStreetMap Nominatim，请勿输入私人住址或敏感信息。 搜索服务政策
正在连接本地目录…
非常安全
较安全
谨慎
高风险
很高风险
极端风险
约翰内斯堡: 49
数字是全球统一尺度的研究估算；R 表示研究中。所有内容均非旅行建议。
找到心仪的酒店了？订房前，先看看周边区域。
点击搜索会把查询内容和所选城市发送给 OpenStreetMap Nominatim，请勿输入私人住址或敏感信息。 搜索服务政策
出发前，先了解
低置信度的首版参考：结合南非国家级指标与针对暴力犯罪、绑架、恐怖主义和骚乱的官方警示。
城市研究估算为 49/100；模型尺度上分数越高越安全。 证据日期: · 置信度: D
颜色反映城市内部的区域证据。 空白处缺少区域证据，不代表安全。
128 个已映射区域 ·
边界数据: OpenStreetMap contributors · Johannesburg municipal wards (Open Data Commons Open Database License 1.0)
城市估算不能评估某条街道、某家酒店或特定时段。
A low-confidence first reference using South Africa-level structural indicators and official warnings about violent crime, kidnapping, terrorism, and unrest.
Batch-generated global-scale research estimates. Local signals are used when available; otherwise documented country-level baselines and official current-condition guidance provide a low-confidence first reference. Not travel advice.
Overall-only public-alpha estimate. Ward variation is a conservative four-kilometre proximity signal from 39 community-mapped police and fire-station points that fall inside the current Johannesburg ward boundaries, anchored to Johannesburg's global city score. Fire stations receive a small transparent capacity weight. OpenStreetMap facility coverage is not an authoritative or complete government register, and proximity is not response time or performance: the model ignores roads, traffic, staffing, equipment, availability, incident demand and hazards, while centroid proximity can misrepresent large wards. Only infrastructure-response access varies; crime and other dimensions do not vary by ward, no day/night difference is inferred, and this is not an official ward ranking. OpenStreetMap boundaries are for display only; not travel advice.
alerts are not long-term baseline risk; event footprint may not equal traveler exposure; alert severity cannot be copied directly into Safrom score
country-level only; humanitarian risk framing differs from traveler exposure; composite inputs can overlap Safrom dimensions; current event conditions require separate signals
country-level only; reporting and justice-system differences; latest year differs by country; not traveler-specific
country-level only; availability does not measure emergency accessibility; latest year differs by country; distribution within a country is hidden
country-level only; collection is not annual for every country; some values are modeled estimates; resident exposure differs from traveler exposure
does not provide a comparable Johannesburg incident rate; U.S.-traveler perspective; advisory level is not an absolute safety score; large within-city and time-of-day variation remains hidden
country-level only; modeled perceptions rather than traveler incidents; cannot represent neighborhood variation or current events; confidence intervals must not be discarded