Definition of "Clinching" a Route

[kphoger]

As everyone knows that involves going through Indianapolis, which the highway is non-existent.

I mean, I knew I-70 goes through Indianapolis, but I didn't know the highway was torn up there.

[ethanhopkin14]

As everyone knows that involves going through Indianapolis, which the highway is non-existent.

I mean, I knew I-70 goes through Indianapolis, but I didn't know the highway was torn up there.

Well, I have seen many people here comment on it was all I was getting at.  I wasn't trying to pass it off like I had new information was all I meant.

[GaryV]

Completely closed downtown for construction. And noted on VMS's starting scores of miles outside of Indy, plus multiple times along I-465.

[jeffandnicole]

Another twist to my "unclinched routes" was when VDOT completed the eastbound lanes of US-460 between Rich Creek and Narrows.  The old mountainous two-lane was converted into the westbound lanes.  My first time back across this section was also westbound.  It was several months before I returned to Blacksburg using the eastbound lanes, which got me the clinch again.

I think most people consider a road clinched if they have driven either direction, not both. Roadways are frequently widened, often without widespread knowledge, and it would be impossible to go back to short segments just to clinch a few miles of roadway that became divided.

[Takumi]

I consider an extension of a route to be an un-clinch, and for a reroute, I think it's dependent on how drastic said reroute is. The only route I can think of that's been extended since I clinched it is VA 164, which I consider un-clinched. (I also went back and re-clinched NC 615 when it was extended to NC 168, which just involved me driving down the loop road since I'd ridden the ferry in 2012.)

[Avalanchez71]

Say you clinched US 31E in 2000.  Well since they rerouted the route in Davidson and Sumner counties would that now be considered an un-clinch?

US 31E back in 1990 was routed from downtown to Main St to Ellington Pkwy to Briley Pkwy to I-65 to SR 386 to the alignment in Gallatin at the time. 

It now goes to Briley Pkwy but it goes to what was the older route back before the I-65 ride along Gallatin Pike.  It goes back to it's older alignment. 

There was an old "TENN" US 31E 30's looking shield along Gallatin Pike when the alignment was along I-65.  When it was swapped back to Gallatin Pike they removed that old shield.

[Rothman]

Reading this thread makes me grateful I only clinch Interstates.

[Max Rockatansky]

Reading this thread makes me grateful I only clinch Interstates.

The prospect of driving to Florida next year already has me looking at how many viable options there are for avoiding I-10.  From Los Angeles to San Antonio it is relatively simple and part of the chain of National Parks my wife wants to see.  The fact that I've clinched I-10 in both directions is painful given it contained few miles of exploration and fun.

[paulthemapguy]

My two cents: do what feels right to you.  I'm not going to advocate for policing the nuance of your clinches' continuities. If you want to clinch in a manner that's relatively fast and loose, go for it.  As for me, I'm not flying out to California to re-clinch a highway that was realigned to a different roadway a mile over.  Overall, I think I agree with Takumi above.  Extensions are un-clinches; with slight reroutes, I don't see the need to invalidate a clinch.

I consider an extension of a route to be an un-clinch, and for a reroute, I think it's dependent on how drastic said reroute is. The only route I can think of that's been extended since I clinched it is VA 164, which I consider un-clinched. (I also went back and re-clinched NC 615 when it was extended to NC 168, which just involved me driving down the loop road since I'd ridden the ferry in 2012.)

[ethanhopkin14]

My two cents: do what feels right to you.  I'm not going to advocate for policing the nuance of your clinches' continuities. If you want to clinch in a manner that's relatively fast and loose, go for it.  As for me, I'm not flying out to California to re-clinch a highway that was realigned to a different roadway a mile over.  Overall, I think I agree with Takumi above.  Extensions are un-clinches; with slight reroutes, I don't see the need to invalidate a clinch.

I consider an extension of a route to be an un-clinch, and for a reroute, I think it's dependent on how drastic said reroute is. The only route I can think of that's been extended since I clinched it is VA 164, which I consider un-clinched. (I also went back and re-clinched NC 615 when it was extended to NC 168, which just involved me driving down the loop road since I'd ridden the ferry in 2012.)

That means I-20 is un-clinched for me since I have not driven on the new re-alignment around Ranger Hill in Texas.  It's okay, I will have a chance in a few years to clinch it. 

[MATraveler128]

To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.

[kphoger]

Isn't there a difference between a rerouting and a realignment?

Situation 1:  A route is realigned to bypass a town.  For example, when IL-13 was moved onto the new bypass in Harrisburg, I had already moved away from the area.  Because part of the bypass hadn't been built yet when I moved away, I haven't driven all of the current IL-13 mileage through Harrisburg.  I can therefore understand that sort of thing to cause an un-clinch.

Situation 2:  A route designation shifts onto entirely new highway  For example, MO-76 was recently rerouted and supplanted MO-465 in the process.  If you hadn't ever driven on MO-465, then I understand why someone would consider the rerouting to cause an un-clinch of MO-76.  But what if you had driven on MO-465?  Would those miles now count toward MO-76?

Situation 3:  A route is realigned to straighten it out.  This one gets a little tricky.  Let's say that it gets a new realignment to straighten out some curves.  Does the route get un-clinched because there's "new pavement" you haven't driven on?  If your answer is yes, then what if the road was rebuilt to flatten out some hills?  It's still a sort of realignment, just on a different axis.

Situation 4:  A major river bridge is demolished and rebuilt.  To me, this is functionally the same as a realignment:  the original "structure" of the road has been replaced with something new.

[Rothman]

To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.

If you must have driven every mile of the road, then you must do as I do and deem the "same interchange rule" invalid.  You must drive on that little section of overpass or underpass to clinch every mile of the road...

[ethanhopkin14]

To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.

If you must have driven every mile of the road, then you must do as I do and deem the "same interchange rule" invalid.  You must drive on that little section of overpass or underpass to clinch every mile of the road...

I am sad to admit I have stopped for gas at interchange B heading west, got gas, then got on the eastbound side to exit interchange A to then go to the other side of the freeway to get back on heading west again to go under the bridge for interchange B just to fulfil this issue.  I enjoy it, but I also know its a shameful practice and my children and children's children will also bear that shame for the rest of their lives. 

I have actually done this so many times I lost track of how many times I have done it.

[kphoger]

To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.

If you must have driven every mile of the road, then you must do as I do and deem the "same interchange rule" invalid.  You must drive on that little section of overpass or underpass to clinch every mile of the road...

I mean, there are examples where exiting for gas and then getting back on again leaves more than one mile of the highway un-driven-on.

[Dirt Roads]

Isn't there a difference between a rerouting and a realignment?

Situation 2:  A route designation shifts onto entirely new highway  For example, MO-76 was recently rerouted and supplanted MO-465 in the process.  If you hadn't ever driven on MO-465, then I understand why someone would consider the rerouting to cause an un-clinch of MO-76.  But what if you had driven on MO-465?  Would those miles now count toward MO-76?

I'm sure that I'm old-fashioned and picky, but I didn't count them as clinched (such as some of the reroutings of US-52 in West Virginia).  I feel that I need to lay eyes on the trailblazers for the route to count as clinched.  The flip side of this is that I still count the old routes are clinched when they have been supplanted or decommissioned (like WV-43 or WV-82, respectively).

[kphoger]

I'm sure that I'm old-fashioned ...

Yeah, that's the way my great-grandpappy used to count clinches...

[hbelkins]

I clinched I-880 in Iowa before it was ever numbered I-880. I was on that section (between I-29 and I-80) back in the 1990s when it still had its old number. When that route was renumbered, I gained a clinch that I didn't have to go back and revisit.

Likewise with the extension of I-69 along the Kentucky parkways. I haven't driven on that section of the Purchase Parkway between Mayfield and Calvert City since it was labeled I-69, but I don't have to. I will have I-69 in Kentucky clinched until the time that the new alignment and bridge are completed.

[Rothman]

Nah.  If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nah.  If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.

By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch?  Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default? 

Imagine being around during the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of DOTs were renumbering their state highways.  That would kind of suck to look at something like the 1964 California State Highway Renumbering and deciding to do a bunch of routes all over again. 

[vdeane]

Nah.  If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.

I think you're in the minority on that.  For me, my clinches are map first, stats second.  The map of where I've been doesn't change just because the route number did.

[Dirt Roads]

Nah.  If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.

By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch?  Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default? 

Imagine being around during the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of DOTs were renumbering their state highways.  That would kind of suck to look at something like the 1964 California State Highway Renumbering and deciding to do a bunch of routes all over again.

There's been a ton of numbering changes in West Virginia since I started driving, and I don't really care.  Been there, done that, and probably will never get back to see much of my old haints even if I want to.  But it is still fun to look at the maps and count all of the "Unclinched!" routes.

[Rothman]

Nah.  If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.

By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch?  Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default? 

I clinched the old route, not the new route.  It isn't about pavement.  It's about clinching routes.  If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.

[Rothman]

Nah.  If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.

I think you're in the minority on that.  For me, my clinches are map first, stats second.  The map of where I've been doesn't change just because the route number did.

Then you're clinching pavement and not routes.  If that's your goal, though, it's all good.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nah.  If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.

By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch?  Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default? 

I clinched the old route, not the new route.  It isn't about pavement.  It's about clinching routes.  If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.

I look at it the opposite way.  The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation.  You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.

Also, whether a route technically alive or dead to me really is inconsequential.  Decommissioned routes tend to be just as interesting to me if not more so than actively signed highways.  An example of this would have been former CA 188 on Fallen Leaf Lake Road.  It was very different than the actively signed routes around the Lake Tahoe region and therefore had something more interesting (to me) to offer.