Classes of "Clinching"

[NWI_Irish96]

I don't think routes should be designated/signed beyond the point where you can't turn around before a border crossing, or within restricted areas. Would solve the problem of not being able to clinch.

As for what I consider clinching to be, I follow a sight rule similar to Max. If I get on/off a freeway to get food and/or gas, there are a couple reasons why I count the route as clinched even though I didn't actually drive on a few hundred feet of the route:

1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way

2. For routes where I'm not likely to ever be back to that area, it's a waste of time and gas to backtrack when you've already seen everything that can be seen from the roadway

For surface routes that have a bridge out, I treat it the same way. If I can drive up to the point of closure on each side and see the other side, I consider it clinched.

One exception I make to the sight rule is that if I'm missing an entire segment between two very close waypoints in TravelMapping, I'll not count it as clinched even if I can see those points from each other.

As for the category "comprehensive clinch" I consider bannered routes to be separate routes from the main route, so I don't really think about whether I've collected an entire "family"

[hbelkins]

We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.

[JayhawkCO]

We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.

I agree. My standards are probably lower than most, but that's okay. If I miss one flyover ramp, whatever. My road travels are more about seeing different things and different parts of the country. If I feel like I have done so by traveling a road, I count it.

[Rothman]

We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.

Right.  People should clinch like I do.

[Rothman]

Having been across a lot of crossings between U.S. and Canada, I think the paranoia about how guards will react is exaggerated.  I've had grumpy guards, but no severe "you can't cross" events.

I've been stopped for 4 hours and 2 hours at Vancouver airport and the Ambassador Bridge respectively in the past. Easily the biggest hassles I've ever had in immigration despite having been to 66 countries.

Not sure what the airport has to do with clinching land crossings.

So, out of how many times driving into Canada was that one two-hour delay?  Were you detained for that time or was it how long the line was?

[royo6022]

We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.

Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. But regardless, it's fun to talk about. I think we've established that everyone has different ways they do it, but it's still been interesting to read everyone's thoughts on it.

[JayhawkCO]

Having been across a lot of crossings between U.S. and Canada, I think the paranoia about how guards will react is exaggerated.  I've had grumpy guards, but no severe "you can't cross" events.

I've been stopped for 4 hours and 2 hours at Vancouver airport and the Ambassador Bridge respectively in the past. Easily the biggest hassles I've ever had in immigration despite having been to 66 countries.

Not sure what the airport has to do with clinching land crossings.

So, out of how many times driving into Canada was that one two-hour delay?  Were you detained for that time or was it how long the line was?

The airport, in theory, they could have denied me entry (or transit in this case) as well.

I've driven into Canada 5 times. That time, I was detained for that long as they searched every nook and cranny of the car while we waited in the building. It was my friend and I going on a road trip and they seemed to think it was odd that some 21-year-old kids from Kansas wanted to visit Toronto and Montreal.

[CtrlAltDel]

1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way

You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.

[webny99]

1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way

You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.

That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.

[CtrlAltDel]

1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way

You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.

That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.

Arguably so, but given that you'd have to drive that segment again anyway to get the clinch (according to this standard), it doesn't really matter all that much.

In any case, it's not an impractical thing to do, which was my main point.

[Scott5114]

1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way

You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.

That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.

Arguably so, but given that you'd have to drive that segment again anyway to get the clinch (according to this standard), it doesn't really matter all that much.

In any case, it's not an impractical thing to do, which was my main point.

If I as a traveler consider the route 100% clinched, to the point that I have no personal interest in going back to actually clinch that segment, it would introduce a mismatch between your stats on TM (i.e. which routes show 100%) and what you consider reality to be (i.e. that you consider that route 100% clinched).

I think that's maybe something that doesn't make it through to the expansion joint lickers–it is not that we can't clinch the last few hundred feet of a route when there's a gate, it's that we don't want to, because we wouldn't get anything out of it. So there's not really an intent to go back and get it at any point.

I don't think routes should be designated/signed beyond the point where you can't turn around before a border crossing, or within restricted areas. Would solve the problem of not being able to clinch.

Here's a stupid question to throw into the discussion–do you have to drive anything after the END sign to clinch a route?

[royo6022]

1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way

You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.

That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.

Arguably so, but given that you'd have to drive that segment again anyway to get the clinch (according to this standard), it doesn't really matter all that much.

In any case, it's not an impractical thing to do, which was my main point.

If I as a traveler consider the route 100% clinched, to the point that I have no personal interest in going back to actually clinch that segment, it would introduce a mismatch between your stats on TM (i.e. which routes show 100%) and what you consider reality to be (i.e. that you consider that route 100% clinched).

I think that's maybe something that doesn't make it through to the expansion joint lickers–it is not that we can't clinch the last few hundred feet of a route when there's a gate, it's that we don't want to, because we wouldn't get anything out of it. So there's not really an intent to go back and get it at any point.

I don't think routes should be designated/signed beyond the point where you can't turn around before a border crossing, or within restricted areas. Would solve the problem of not being able to clinch.

Here's a stupid question to throw into the discussion–do you have to drive anything after the END sign to clinch a route?

You could do it multiple ways I suppose. If the physical road continues, proceed past the end point from the route you just clinched and then clinch the entire next one in the process. 

However if you're from my area, an "END" route sign typically means if you go any further you'll be in a field.

[CtrlAltDel]

If I as a traveler consider the route 100% clinched, to the point that I have no personal interest in going back to actually clinch that segment, it would introduce a mismatch between your stats on TM (i.e. which routes show 100%) and what you consider reality to be (i.e. that you consider that route 100% clinched).

Right, but my point is not about the clinch itself, but about a nonimpractical way to mark it on Travel Mapping if you use a stricter standard. Obviously, if you use a different standard, then things will be likely be marked differently. I'm certainly not arguing against anything like that.

[flan]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

[Rothman]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No
2) Yes

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.

[webny99]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.

If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.

If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.

Spiritually? Yes. I think everybody agrees with that. Legally? YMMV.

[Rothman]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.

Of course the ramps are part of the routes.  Otherwise, they would be discontiguous.

[JoePCool14]

If I ever have the opportunity to try clinching routes near international borders, I'm not going to try crossing the border just to clinch it. I'll go to the last turnaround point and call it good.

I also am a supporter of sight-clinching where absolutely necessary. I sometimes take it on a case by case basis, usually applying it if there's a road closure or I exit and re-enter a highway at the same interchange. Where it gets messy for my is at larger interchanges with several exits. Recently, I was in the Detroit area and I had to figure out how to mark my travels at the I-96/I-275/I-696 interchange. That one was tricky.

Also, I haven't clinched I-88 in Illinois thanks to one section (according to Travel Mapping) that goes beyond the exit to I-294 north.

[Scott5114]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not?

Because Rothman really, really wants you to get out there and lick those expansion joints.

[royo6022]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No
2) Yes

Got us going up and down ramps in a big circle just to clinch part of an overlapping route that doesn't even go past the exit   

[CtrlAltDel]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.

If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.

Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.

That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:

[Rothman]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.

If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.

Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.

That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:

I find that hard to believe and more because TN's got a lazy GPS coder.

[US 89]

Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?

Is what I wrote even intelligible?   

1) No

Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.

If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.

Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.

That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:

I find that hard to believe and more because TN's got a lazy GPS coder.

Isn't the I-76/I-80 interchange in Ohio the same way?