Definition of "Clinching" a Route

[Scott5114]

I have about the sloppiest criteria for clinching as anyone you'll ever meet. It basically boils down to "If I was able to reasonably experience what was marked as Route X between points A and B at the time I was there, then I clinched Route X between points A and B". There's too much stuff I want to see in my life to dick around driving back to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or whatever because they realigned a mile of road and I need it to keep a clinch. That's so fiddly I wouldn't have any fun doing it (and in fact would start to actively resent having to do it), so I don't.

• Extensions to a clinched route–about the only time I'll scratch my clinch. That's new material I don't have, so I need to see it to count the route as clinched.
• Route closure with detour– If Route X was closed, the detour counts.
• Realignments–irrelevant. If it was the active Route X when I was on it, it counts.
• Renumberings–the clinch just transfers to the new number. Nothing changed about the road or the scenery, just the signs changed. Do you say that you don't know someone anymore when they get married and their last name changes?
  
• Sight clinching–If I can follow along the route and keep sight of it the whole time (like on a frontage road or a parallel street) I count it even if I'm not on the road itself. If I wouldn't be experiencing anything different if I was on the mainline, there's no point drawing a distinction. (Note that if there's a route that runs along the frontage road and I'm on a freeway mainline, like how MO-97 parallels I-44 for a bit, I don't count that since it's much easier to see what a freeway is like from a frontage road than the reverse.)
• Spite clinching–Every time Rothman tells someone they didn't clinch something, I pick a random route in a state I've never been to and count that as clinched.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can get behind sight clinches.  For example, I could see the eastern terminus of Interstate H-3 but at Marine Corps Base Hawaii but I didn't want to deal with the base traffic turnaround or having to whip out my CAC card.  The being the case I took the Kaneohe Bay Drive exit.  I could see the terminus, what more was there to experience on H3 other than inconvenience?

[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.

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.

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

[Scott5114]

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

This post just clinched WY-789 for me!

[Rothman]

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

This post just clinched WY-789 for me!

Fine.  Clinching pavement's for weenies.

[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.

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread.  If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor .  Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing.  Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."  

Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log.  I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job.  Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).

[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.

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.

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread.  If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor .  Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing.  Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."  

Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log.  I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job.  Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).

Well, you have fun then, but clinching routes is not fun for you and therefore you don't do it.

[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.

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread.  If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor .  Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing.  Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."  

Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log.  I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job.  Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).

Well, you have fun then, but clinching routes is not fun for you and therefore you don't do it.

But I do clinch them, it just isn't my mission statement.  I just see no need to be so draconian about a hobby when it can sap the fun out of it. 

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread.  If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor .  Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing.  Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."  

Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log.  I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job.  Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).

I keep a route log because I like the sense of accomplishment, even if it's an entirely trivial one.

There were a lot of routes in Indiana that were not enjoyable to drive and I wouldn't have driven otherwise, but finishing off the entire state highway system was satisfying.

Plus, sometimes route clinching leads you to interesting places you'd never find otherwise. Yesterday I was clinching routes in Bureau and Putnam counties in Illinois and ended up in Tampico in neighboring Whitesides County. It's the birthplace of Ronald Reagan and had some interesting sites. I'd likely have never ended up there otherwise.

[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.

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.

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread.  If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor .  Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing.  Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."  

Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log.  I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job.  Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).

Well, you have fun then, but clinching routes is not fun for you and therefore you don't do it.

But I do clinch them, it just isn't my mission statement.  I just see no need to be so draconian about a hobby when it can sap the fun out of it.

It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.

Take I-865.  Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated?  Sure.  But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so.  So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet.  That's silly.

So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before.  But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.

And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie.  They haven't clinched that particular route.  And lying is bad.

[NWI_Irish96]

It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.

Take I-865.  Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated?  Sure.  But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so.  So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet.  That's silly.

So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before.  But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.

And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie.  They haven't clinched that particular route.  And lying is bad.

In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.

I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.

[kphoger]

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

You clinch numbers, not routes.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Rothman]

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

You clinch numbers, not routes.  Nothing wrong with that.

Routes are the numbers.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Rothman]

It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.

Take I-865.  Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated?  Sure.  But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so.  So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet.  That's silly.

So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before.  But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.

And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie.  They haven't clinched that particular route.  And lying is bad.

In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.

I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.

I resolve that issue by not allowing TM to be the gospel on what I have or haven't clinched.  For me, I haven't been on I-41, although TM says I have.  I just know I have to head back there to clinch I-41.

[kphoger]

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

You clinch numbers, not routes.  Nothing wrong with that.

Routes are the numbers.  Nothing wrong with that.

Routes are roads.  Consult any dictionary.  Nothing wrong with that.

[NWI_Irish96]

It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.

Take I-865.  Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated?  Sure.  But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so.  So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet.  That's silly.

So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before.  But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.

And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie.  They haven't clinched that particular route.  And lying is bad.

In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.

I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.

I resolve that issue by not allowing TM to be the gospel on what I have or haven't clinched.  For me, I haven't been on I-41, although TM says I have.  I just know I have to head back there to clinch I-41.

I just don't have the time to look all over the country for new routes on roads I've already traveled to keep track separately from travelmapping. I-41 I know about because it's nearby. There are concurrencies on interstates out west where I was on the road 20+ years ago and don't remember whether the concurrency existed then or not, so it's easier to just use TM as the authority.

[Rothman]

Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement.  Nothing wrong with that.

But, you haven't clinched the new route.

You clinch numbers, not routes.  Nothing wrong with that.

Routes are the numbers.  Nothing wrong with that.

Routes are roads.  Consult any dictionary.  Nothing wrong with that.

Nah.  Routes are designations upon certain roads.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Rothman]

It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.

Take I-865.  Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated?  Sure.  But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so.  So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet.  That's silly.

So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before.  But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.

And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie.  They haven't clinched that particular route.  And lying is bad.

In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.

I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.

I resolve that issue by not allowing TM to be the gospel on what I have or haven't clinched.  For me, I haven't been on I-41, although TM says I have.  I just know I have to head back there to clinch I-41.

I just don't have the time to look all over the country for new routes on roads I've already traveled to keep track separately from travelmapping. I-41 I know about because it's nearby. There are concurrencies on interstates out west where I was on the road 20+ years ago and don't remember whether the concurrency existed then or not, so it's easier to just use TM as the authority.

Ah, the suffering of the route-clinching roadgeek.  Having to cut corners because of the ever-changing systems...

[kphoger]

Routes are designations upon certain roads.

So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there?  That seems like an un-useful definition.

[Rothman]

Routes are designations upon certain roads.

So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there?  That seems like an un-useful definition.

I am not familiar with Chad's transportation system.

[webny99]

In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works.

I agree that TravelMapping is a big factor for anyone that uses it. If you've been on the road segment, you've been on it and that's all there is to it. If the number changes, I have no issues with saying you have to go back and re-clinch to get the new number, but it's still completely fine to keep it logged as a traveled segment.

[kphoger]

Routes are designations upon certain roads.

So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there?  That seems like an un-useful definition.

I am not familiar with Chad's transportation system.

As far as I know, its roads have no numbers.

[7/8]

Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Max Rockatansky]

In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works.

I agree that TravelMapping is a big factor for anyone that uses it. If you've been on the road segment, you've been on it and that's all there is to it. If the number changes, I have no issues with saying you have to go back and re-clinch to get the new number, but it's still completely fine to keep it logged as a traveled segment.

Essentially you are hitting on many of the reasons I don't have a TravelMapping account.  I have so much else in the hobby I try to manage between blogs and podcasts that I don't really have time to add anything else.  Also TravelMapping from what my observation has been is far more about clinching numbered highways than necessarily roads I might be interested in.

[paulthemapguy]

I just see no need to be so draconian about a hobby when it can sap the fun out of it.

Can I make this my forum signature?