AARoads Forum

Hard question to answer since most people have a variety of definitions to clinching, but on average, do small pull-offs count when clinching.  I have an interstate shield on this thread but I am talking about all freeways. 

What I am asking about is you exit the freeway to get a bite to eat and then re-enter the freeway and continue your trip.  You didn't travel over that over/under pass so does it count?  In that case (say you are traveling west) do you get on the freeway going eastbound to the next exit, so you can turnaround and travel over the skipped over/under pass?

How about rest areas, parking areas, welcome centers and toll oasis?  Since its an on/off with no access to the opposite direction so no means of doubling back, do they count?

My opinion is exiting to go to a gas station or get a burger does not count as clinching.  A lot of times on a long road trip I will be heading back the same route and make sure not to stop at the same places or take the same exits so I can cover the main lanes of the exits I took on the way out. Rest Areas are technically a part of the freeway in my opinion, but I make it a point not to stop at the same rest area on the way back as well in case I flip flop on that one, which I do.   

Thoughts?

I do little turnarounds over borders when it comes to county clinching -- if I am not in that new county, then where am I?  For interstates, I only need to count one direction, but if I get off, I do need to backtrack to get the over or underpass.

That said, for special cases like I-95 in NJ or I-670 in Columbus or I-480...I do clinch the legs or spurs.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 18, 2021, 10:46:30 AM
What I am asking about is you exit the freeway to get a bite to eat and then re-enter the freeway and continue your trip.  You didn't travel over that over/under pass so does it count?

I don't track my clinches.  But, in my opinion, the ramps are just as much a part of the freeway as the mainline roadways.  You may not have traveled the mainline across that side road, but you did travel the ramps across it.  Unless you're reeeeeeally nit-picky and refuse to count the portion shown in red below.

(https://i.imgur.com/vjUNPtm.png)

... in which case, I begin to question your sanity.  Heck, what if there were a wreck in front of you on an Interstate, and you had to drive around it off-pavement?  Would that disqualify a clinch?  At some point, you gotta be realistic.

Just my opinion.

I am sure we have had this discussion before because I recall a lot of discussion about the "same exit principle" whereby if you exit to use a gas station, then get back on at the same interchange. A lot of people considered that close enough and will count it. I don't recall the name of the thread, but I know it's been discussed.

Edited to add: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9287.msg216495#msg216495

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:19:12 AM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 18, 2021, 10:46:30 AM
What I am asking about is you exit the freeway to get a bite to eat and then re-enter the freeway and continue your trip.  You didn't travel over that over/under pass so does it count?

I don't track my clinches.  But, in my opinion, the ramps are just as much a part of the freeway as the mainline roadways.  You may not have traveled the mainline across that side road, but you did travel the ramps across it.  Unless you're reeeeeeally nit-picky and refuse to count the portion shown in red below.

(https://i.imgur.com/vjUNPtm.png)

... in which case, I begin to question your sanity.  Heck, what if there were a wreck in front of you on an Interstate, and you had to drive around it off-pavement?  Would that disqualify a clinch?  At some point, you gotta be realistic.

Just my opinion.

I agree with this statement regarding ramps and more so what was said about sanity.  Long ago I was far more worried about clinching roads in State Highway systems than I was concerned about driving what I thought was fun.  Fun doesn't necessarily need to include a clinch of a Route nor the technicalities they come with it sometimes.  For example; for me to go back and finish what little I have left in Arizona's State Highway system would require me to go somewhere just to drive couple new freeway segments and a boring flat road near Willcox.  To me that's tedious and just not with the effort to do.  Also, it never bothered me not to count a border checkpoint beyond the turnaround even if it was technically part of a highway.

My guidelines for clinching are pretty lenient atm:

- an exit counts regardless if it's on the mainline or one of the ramps. So that means gas/food/rest stops count, as well as my home exit, as I have little reason to use the overpass there.
- direction doesn't matter. So, for example, a drive on I-71 on southbound between exit X and its southern terminus and a separate trip northbound from that same exit to its northern terminus will count the route as clinched for me.
- since I only have my license for about a year at this point, I'm counting ones that I'm a passenger on as part of a clinch. If it's me driving only, literally the only interstates I've clinched would be I-471 and I-675.

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 11:49:06 AM
- since I only have my license for about a year at this point, I'm counting ones that I'm a passenger on as part of a clinch. If it's me driving only, literally the only interstate I've clinched would be I-471.

I would count it I were a passenger but old enough to drive, but not if I weren't.  That is to say, switching off at the wheel with my wife doesn't detract.  But being in a car when I was eight years old doesn't cut the mustard.

I didn't start logging my traveled routes until I was in my 30s, so an awful lot of my route log is reconstructed from memory. I don't remember what exits I used. Also, I use travelmapping.net and they don't even have separate waypoints for exit and entrance ramps so taking all of that into consideration I count a road or road segment as clinched even if I've missed an overpass. Same goes for a surface highway where the entrance and exit to a gas station or restaurant might cause me to miss 20 feet or so of highway pavement.

As for being a passenger, I count it if I was awake.

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:58:57 AM
I would count it I were a passenger but old enough to drive, but not if I weren't.  That is to say, switching off at the wheel with my wife doesn't detract.  But being in a car when I was eight years old doesn't cut the mustard.

My parents were big into long car trips when I was a kid. We went to DC, Georgia, Florida, Colorado and California. There are a couple thousand miles from those trips that I haven't seen since and I still count them since I remember them.

Quote from: cabiness42 on February 18, 2021, 12:03:09 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:58:57 AM
I would count it I were a passenger but old enough to drive, but not if I weren't.  That is to say, switching off at the wheel with my wife doesn't detract.  But being in a car when I was eight years old doesn't cut the mustard.

My parents were big into long car trips when I was a kid. We went to DC, Georgia, Florida, Colorado and California. There are a couple thousand miles from those trips that I haven't seen since and I still count them since I remember them.

I do the same. We took several multiple-week family vacations in Eastern Canada (1982 trip to Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick; 1984 trip to Ontario and Quebec; 1986 trip to Ontario that saw us get all the way up to Moosonee and Moose Factory; 1987 trip to Michigan that saw us return via Ontario), plus a 1989 Boy Scout trip to the Canadian Jamboree on PEI. I was well-aware of roads, where we were, and where we were going, so I count those trips. The parts that I don't recall where we went would mostly be things that I wouldn't be counting for "clinch" purposes anyway, like local driving on city streets or similar. I've been back to some of those places myself, but I'm completely certain there are a fair number I will never seen again (northern Ontario, including Cochrane and Timmins, is probably at the top of that list), so I don't see why I wouldn't count them.

Regarding some people saying "I must be the driver," in the previous thread I linked above, someone made the good point that as a passenger you are better able to look around and focus on things other than strictly driving. I remember when I was 15 and had my learner's permit and we took a family trip to New York, I drove most of the way and my father commented on how nice it was to get to look around and see what was along those roads. He had always been the driver prior to that trip.

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 11:49:06 AM
- since I only have my license for about a year at this point, I'm counting ones that I'm a passenger on as part of a clinch. If it's me driving only, literally the only interstate I've clinched would be I-471.

I would count it I were a passenger but old enough to drive, but not if I weren't.  That is to say, switching off at the wheel with my wife doesn't detract.  But being in a car when I was eight years old doesn't cut the mustard.

For roads that I've been on below the driving age, I count ones I'm 100% sure with, which is most likely almost everything from about the age of 9 for me, since that's when I started to pay attention to roads. That only adds in one 2di for me (I-71), but a decent amount of 3di (3/4 I-270, I-271, 2/4 I-275, 2/3 I-475, 2/3 I-675, 2/2 I-670, 1/3 I-470, I-170, I-865, + many more), and the QEW in Ontario. If I'm unsure about a road, I'm not counting it.

Though I'll specifically mention one road that has a combination of someone else driving and my own that's in my clinch list: I-275 around Cincinnati. Going clockwise, I've been on every part of I-275 between exit 11 (Creation Museum exit) and exit 4 (CVG Airport exit) as a passenger on various trips. Only got the missing 7 mile segment between exits 4 and 11 on a trip specifically to finish that part when I was completing my 50 hours for my learner's permit.

If I exit and enter at the same interchange, I count it.

My opinion of a complete clinch is that you drive on the entire road from beginning to end (not necessarily in one sitting and in either direction). I regard if you exit then get back on the freeway, then that doesn't count for a complete clinch IMO. However, I think that if you came back in the other direction and drove over that exit, then that would be a clinch. Example:

Let's say I haven't clinched I-12 (even though I have), and I stopped at the Pilot truck stop here at exit 40 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4790205,-90.4568561,17.16z) after driving the entire road from Baton Rouge to that point eastbound. If I get back on at that exit eastbound and stay on I-12 all the way to Slidell, then I haven't clinched the route because I haven't driven over the overpass at exit 40. But if on my way back home, I drive I-12 back west and stop somewhere closer to Baton Rouge, then the clinch would count because I drove over the overpass at exit 40 on the way back. TL;DR, direction doesn't matter.

Here's an overview of what I do and do not count when it comes to clinching (I guess I am a bit of a perfectionist):

Count:
Emergency Pull Offs
Border Checkpoints
Toll Plazas
Trips as Passenger (though I mark them with an asterisk)

Don't Count:
Exits
Ramps
Rest/Parking Areas
Parallel Routes in Concurrencies (think I-10/I-45 in Houston)

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:00:09 PM
....
Parallel Routes in Concurrencies (think I-10/I-45 in Houston)

Curious what exactly you mean there. Let me use Atlanta as an example as somewhere I'm more familiar with than Houston. I've clinched I-85, the whole thing from Petersburg to Montgomery. I-85 has the well-known concurrency with I-75 in Atlanta. I have not clinched I-75.

Suppose I were coming from the south on I-75 and I exited to go west on I-20. Then on another trip, suppose I were coming from the north on I-75 and I exited at North Avenue to go to the Varsity and then did not return to the highway. In your view, does that mean that I have not travelled the part of I-75 between North Avenue and I-20 because I've only travelled it "as part of I-85" ?

Just trying to understand what you mean by that point. I don't count it the same way, if I'm understanding your meaning. In my view, driving that section of highway that bears both numbers is sufficient to count it towards both clinches.

Quote from: hbelkins on February 18, 2021, 12:52:05 PM
If I exit and enter at the same interchange, I count it.

Agreed.

Although once on a two-lane road, I turned left to get a coffee at a Starbucks, but then re-entered the highway from the street so I could utilize the light.  So I missed maybe about 100 feet.  It bugged me so much, that I doubled back about a mile down the road.

And that my friends, is how I clinched US-34 in Illinois.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 01:32:59 PM

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:00:09 PM
....
Parallel Routes in Concurrencies (think I-10/I-45 in Houston)

Curious what exactly you mean there. Let me use Atlanta as an example as somewhere I'm more familiar with than Houston. I've clinched I-85, the whole thing from Petersburg to Montgomery. I-85 has the well-known concurrency with I-75 in Atlanta. I have not clinched I-75.

Suppose I were coming from the south on I-75 and I exited to go west on I-20. Then on another trip, suppose I were coming from the north on I-75 and I exited at North Avenue to go to the Varsity and then did not return to the highway. In your view, does that mean that I have not travelled the part of I-75 between North Avenue and I-20 because I've only travelled it "as part of I-85" ?

Just trying to understand what you mean by that point. I don't count it the same way, if I'm understanding your meaning. In my view, driving that section of highway that bears both numbers is sufficient to count it towards both clinches.

What I meant is if you're driving a concurrency where the two routes are on separate lanes (such as my I-10/I-45 example), then only the route you are on counts towards clinching it. Normal concurrencies where the two routes share the lanes totally count for both. This is why I didn't have TX-288 clinched for a while, even though I live right by it. The northernmost section of it is concurrent with I-69/US 59, but they are on different lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7369156,-95.3680028,3a,43.1y,23.05h,88.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D63.797718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). If I wanted to go up to north Houston, I would usually use I-69 in that area, not TX-288 which connects to I-45.

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:40:39 PM
What I meant is if you're driving a concurrency where the two routes are on separate lanes (such as my I-10/I-45 example), then only the route you are on counts towards clinching it. Normal concurrencies where the two routes share the lanes totally count for both. This is why I didn't have TX-288 clinched for a while, even though I live right by it. The northernmost section of it is concurrent with I-69/US 59, but they are on different lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7369156,-95.3680028,3a,43.1y,23.05h,88.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D63.797718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). If I wanted to go up to north Houston, I would usually use I-69 in that area, not TX-288 which connects to I-45.

If they're on separate lanes, is it even a concurrency anymore? Seems to be more like parallel routes rather than concurrent routes.

I'm very liberal with my rules. I've counted two clinches based on full closures of the highways we were doing because the closure was only a couple blocks and I could see all of what I missed ("sight clinched"). If the closure is a lengthy one I don't count things like that, obviously.

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:40:39 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 01:32:59 PM

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:00:09 PM
....
Parallel Routes in Concurrencies (think I-10/I-45 in Houston)

Curious what exactly you mean there. Let me use Atlanta as an example as somewhere I'm more familiar with than Houston. I've clinched I-85, the whole thing from Petersburg to Montgomery. I-85 has the well-known concurrency with I-75 in Atlanta. I have not clinched I-75.

Suppose I were coming from the south on I-75 and I exited to go west on I-20. Then on another trip, suppose I were coming from the north on I-75 and I exited at North Avenue to go to the Varsity and then did not return to the highway. In your view, does that mean that I have not travelled the part of I-75 between North Avenue and I-20 because I've only travelled it "as part of I-85" ?

Just trying to understand what you mean by that point. I don't count it the same way, if I'm understanding your meaning. In my view, driving that section of highway that bears both numbers is sufficient to count it towards both clinches.

What I meant is if you're driving a concurrency where the two routes are on separate lanes (such as my I-10/I-45 example), then only the route you are on counts towards clinching it. Normal concurrencies where the two routes share the lanes totally count for both. This is why I didn't have TX-288 clinched for a while, even though I live right by it. The northernmost section of it is concurrent with I-69/US 59, but they are on different lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7369156,-95.3680028,3a,43.1y,23.05h,88.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D63.797718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). If I wanted to go up to north Houston, I would usually use I-69 in that area, not TX-288 which connects to I-45.

OK, thanks. I didn't follow the distinction because I haven't been to Houston. I suppose the part of I-85 that runs between the carriageways of I-285 southwest of Atlanta might be similar. It never even occurred to me to consider that towards I-285 because I always figured they're two completely separate roads due to the design.

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 01:42:46 PM

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:40:39 PM
What I meant is if you're driving a concurrency where the two routes are on separate lanes (such as my I-10/I-45 example), then only the route you are on counts towards clinching it. Normal concurrencies where the two routes share the lanes totally count for both. This is why I didn't have TX-288 clinched for a while, even though I live right by it. The northernmost section of it is concurrent with I-69/US 59, but they are on different lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7369156,-95.3680028,3a,43.1y,23.05h,88.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D63.797718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). If I wanted to go up to north Houston, I would usually use I-69 in that area, not TX-288 which connects to I-45.

If they're on separate lanes, is it even a concurrency anymore? Seems to be more like parallel routes rather than concurrent routes.

Agreed.  In my estimation, I-10 and I-45 are not concurrent in Houston to begin with.  They just have a long, drawn-out interchange.

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 01:42:46 PM

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:40:39 PM
What I meant is if you're driving a concurrency where the two routes are on separate lanes (such as my I-10/I-45 example), then only the route you are on counts towards clinching it. Normal concurrencies where the two routes share the lanes totally count for both. This is why I didn't have TX-288 clinched for a while, even though I live right by it. The northernmost section of it is concurrent with I-69/US 59, but they are on different lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7369156,-95.3680028,3a,43.1y,23.05h,88.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D63.797718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). If I wanted to go up to north Houston, I would usually use I-69 in that area, not TX-288 which connects to I-45.

If they're on separate lanes, is it even a concurrency anymore? Seems to be more like parallel routes rather than concurrent routes.

By that logic, then, wouldn't that mean toll lanes are not part of the same route as the free route? It's not a perfect comparison, but it's something interesting to think about.

I regard parallel freeways as roads beside each other (like the extreme east end of the Westpark Tollway and I-69 in Houston). I'd still call instances where one freeway is in the median of another a concurrency but that's just my opinion. Perhaps we should create a more defined term for that sort of thing?

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:51:07 PM
By that logic, then, wouldn't that mean toll lanes are not part of the same route as the free route? It's not a perfect comparison, but it's something interesting to think about.

I don't see toll/free or local/express lanes being any different than regular lanes.  There might be simple white lines between them, there might be paved hash marks, there might be a Jersey barrier, but it's all the same highway regardless.  It's all Route ###.

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:51:07 PM
By that logic, then, wouldn't that mean toll lanes are not part of the same route as the free route? It's not a perfect comparison, but it's something interesting to think about.

This is what I have in mind for that:
- Toll lanes/express lanes are part of the same route because they share the same route number with the local lanes, even if they're a jersey barrier or grass median away.
- Parallel routes are two routes that parallel each other with separate numbers on each physical roadway, like the I-10/I-45 Houston example and I-29/I-80 in Council Bluffs.
- Concurrencies are when two routes share the same roadway and the physical roadway is generally recognized to be part of both route numbers.

You may have something different, but this makes the most sense to me.

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 01:50:38 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 01:42:46 PM

Quote from: CoreySamson on February 18, 2021, 01:40:39 PM
What I meant is if you're driving a concurrency where the two routes are on separate lanes (such as my I-10/I-45 example), then only the route you are on counts towards clinching it. Normal concurrencies where the two routes share the lanes totally count for both. This is why I didn't have TX-288 clinched for a while, even though I live right by it. The northernmost section of it is concurrent with I-69/US 59, but they are on different lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7369156,-95.3680028,3a,43.1y,23.05h,88.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0Rsg6uL0tmNSm0HIin9hkA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D63.797718%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). If I wanted to go up to north Houston, I would usually use I-69 in that area, not TX-288 which connects to I-45.

If they're on separate lanes, is it even a concurrency anymore? Seems to be more like parallel routes rather than concurrent routes.

Agreed.  In my estimation, I-10 and I-45 are not concurrent in Houston to begin with.  They just have a long, drawn-out interchange.

I just looked at Google Maps. It strikes me as being pretty much the same as I-85/I-285 southwest of Atlanta (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6196581,-84.4792587,15.75z) and I-85 and US-74 near Kings Mountain, North Carolina (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2449144,-81.3079652,15.75z). I wouldn't view any of those as concurrencies.

Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:19:12 AM
I don't track my clinches.  But, in my opinion, the ramps are just as much a part of the freeway as the mainline roadways.  You may not have traveled the mainline across that side road, but you did travel the ramps across it.  Unless you're reeeeeeally nit-picky and refuse to count the portion shown in red below.

[img snipped]

... in which case, I begin to question your sanity.  Heck, what if there were a wreck in front of you on an Interstate, and you had to drive around it off-pavement?  Would that disqualify a clinch?  At some point, you gotta be realistic.

This is actually the #1 reason why I don't track my clinches either. Merely thinking about technicalities like this one starts to bring on a headache.

I am pretty liberal with my rules too, probably more liberal than most people. Because the whole point of clinching a road is to say "Yeah, I've seen all this road has to offer" and be satisfied with that. If I am required to follow a bunch of fiddly rules to make sure I covered every scrap of pavement then it just becomes tedious and I'm doing this for me, not to prove anything to anyone else. And I'm a lazy individual, so my rules reflect that.

So interchanges are treated as points. If I get off at exit 62 and get back on at 62 then there is no gap.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 18, 2021, 01:48:35 PM
I've counted two clinches based on full closures of the highways we were doing because the closure was only a couple blocks and I could see all of what I missed ("sight clinched").

I would do the same. Hell, I would count time spent on Texas-style frontage roads as counting toward the freeway (especially if there were missing ramps causing me to ride down to the next interchange to get back on).

I don't need to reclinch a route if it's realigned, so long as the realignment is roughly within the same corridor. So if they move the road to a new street in the same city, or build a new carriageway roughly parallel to the old one to add a new bridge or remove some curves or hills, as long as it still generally serves the same area, I'm not going back to see it unless something specifically piques my interest about it. The idea is I clinched the route as it existed at the time, so it's done. If they do a big enough realignment where it now serves entirely different towns, then I would need to redo it–unless it was moved to be concurrent with something I've already done. Basically the only way something would get "unclinched" is through a pure extension along roads I've never done before.

I count clinches as a passenger. I count clinches from before I could drive. What can I say, I was in band and boy scouts, so I got to see a lot of roads that way. I was enough of a roadgeek as a kid that I remember the routes, so why shouldn't I count it?

I think kphoger hit on one of the major differences among the various different clinching "camps": whether the mainline is the only bit of the freeway that counts or not.

I pretty much fall on the side of considering only the mainline, and so I generally exclude ramps (as well as that potential gap in the middle of the cross street).

What counts as clinching to me begins (when entering) and ends (when exiting) more or less at the theoretical gore, as it is painted on the ground. If I'm on a ramp, anywhere where the lines separating me from the mainline are solid, would not count as clinching, while if the lines are dashed or dotted, that does count. As a result, exiting and reentering at the same exit does not maintain a clinch unless the two ramps are loop ramps or something similar. The same goes for rest areas and the like. It doesn't really matter where the ramp goes, provided it's separate.

With that in mind, I would say that I-10 and I-45 are separate through Houston. I would also say that I-29 and I-80 are separate through Council Bluffs IA, that I-88 and I-355 are separate through the western suburbs of Chicago, and that I-295 is separate from I-76 and NJ 42 in Bellmawr NJ. (If it happens that one side merges together while the other doesn't, what would count is the one I traveled on.)

As far as sanity goes, I don't really feel that that's an issue. You don't win anything for completing a clinch, and you don't lose anything for not completing it. That said, clinching in this way does add some additional miles and turnarounds to work, but, I don't really mind them, considering them as something of an adventure.

I also count clinches if I was a passenger and I don't care what age I did it at.  To each their own.

Quote from: CtrlAltDel on February 18, 2021, 03:13:22 PM
I think kphoger hit on one of the major differences among the various different clinching "camps": whether the mainline is the only bit of the freeway that counts or not.

I pretty much fall on the side of considering only the mainline, and so I generally exclude ramps (as well as that potential gap in the middle of the cross street).

What counts as clinching to me begins (when entering) and ends (when exiting) more or less at the theoretical gore, as it is painted on the ground. If I'm on a ramp, anywhere where the lines separating me from the mainline are solid, would not count as clinching, while if the lines are dashed or dotted, that does count. As a result, exiting and reentering at the same exit does not maintain a clinch unless the two ramps are loop ramps or something similar. The same goes for rest areas and the like. It doesn't really matter where the ramp goes, provided it's separate.

With that in mind, I would say that I-10 and I-45 are separate through Houston. I would also say that I-29 and I-80 are separate through Council Bluffs IA, that I-88 and I-355 are separate through the western suburbs of Chicago, and that I-295 is separate from I-76 and NJ 42 in Bellmawr NJ. (If it happens that one side merges together while the other doesn't, what would count is the one I traveled on.)

As far as sanity goes, I don't really feel that that's an issue. You don't win anything for completing a clinch, and you don't lose anything for not completing it. That said, clinching in this way does add some additional miles and turnarounds to work, but, I don't really mind them, considering them as something of an adventure.

The first time I visited South Carolina I was driving with my brother south on I-95 from New York, planning on taking I-20 back west to Texas.  At that point I had only been as far east as Shreveport on I-20 so this trip would clinch everything east of Shreveport for both of us on I-20.  Instead of taking the ramp from I-95 to I-20, we exited I-95 to BL-20 and turned around at the Walmart in Florence.  Then we traveled east on BL-20 to the point where it turned into I-20 so that we could say we went on the pavement the whole way that was considered I-20.  At the time I wasn't sure if I would ever be back.  Luckily I now have friends in South Carolina so I have been back to Florence several times since then, but this was a good example of going slightly out of the way to make sure that small portion of highway that was not the entrance ramp was traveled by us. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 18, 2021, 03:07:40 PM
I am pretty liberal with my rules too, probably more liberal than most people. Because the whole point of clinching a road is to say "Yeah, I've seen all this road has to offer" and be satisfied with that. If I am required to follow a bunch of fiddly rules to make sure I covered every scrap of pavement then it just becomes tedious and I'm doing this for me, not to prove anything to anyone else. And I'm a lazy individual, so my rules reflect that.

So interchanges are treated as points. If I get off at exit 62 and get back on at 62 then there is no gap.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 18, 2021, 01:48:35 PM
I've counted two clinches based on full closures of the highways we were doing because the closure was only a couple blocks and I could see all of what I missed ("sight clinched").

I would do the same. Hell, I would count time spent on Texas-style frontage roads as counting toward the freeway (especially if there were missing ramps causing me to ride down to the next interchange to get back on).

I don't need to reclinch a route if it's realigned, so long as the realignment is roughly within the same corridor. So if they move the road to a new street in the same city, or build a new carriageway roughly parallel to the old one to add a new bridge or remove some curves or hills, as long as it still generally serves the same area, I'm not going back to see it unless something specifically piques my interest about it. The idea is I clinched the route as it existed at the time, so it's done. If they do a big enough realignment where it now serves entirely different towns, then I would need to redo it—unless it was moved to be concurrent with something I've already done. Basically the only way something would get "unclinched" is through a pure extension along roads I've never done before.

I count clinches as a passenger. I count clinches from before I could drive. What can I say, I was in band and boy scouts, so I got to see a lot of roads that way. I was enough of a roadgeek as a kid that I remember the routes, so why shouldn't I count it?

This same way of thinking is how I, in someway, consider visiting baseball fields.  I went to (old) Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium back in 2007.  Obviously both are torn down now,.  I am not in a hurry to go back to watch a game at either of the Yankees' or Mets' current homes because I feel in a way I have done that.  If you ask the question have you been to the current Yankee Stadium or Citi Field, the answer is of course no, but if you ask me how many home stadiums for Major League teams I have been to, I can count those two, or if you simply ask me if I have been to a home game for the Yankees or Mets, the answer is yes. 

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 18, 2021, 03:51:19 PM
The first time I visited South Carolina I was driving with my brother south on I-95 from New York, planning on taking I-20 back west to Texas.  At that point I had only been as far east as Shreveport on I-20 so this trip would clinch everything east of Shreveport for both of us on I-20.  Instead of taking the ramp from I-95 to I-20, we exited I-95 to BL-20 and turned around at the Walmart in Florence.  Then we traveled east on BL-20 to the point where it turned into I-20 so that we could say we went on the pavement the whole way that was considered I-20.  At the time I wasn't sure if I would ever be back.  Luckily I now have friends in South Carolina so I have been back to Florence several times since then, but this was a good example of going slightly out of the way to make sure that small portion of highway that was not the entrance ramp was traveled by us.

That's pretty much what I did when clinching I-4. I went straight through the I-95 interchange, made a right and 3 lefts, and then took the ramp to I-95.

I will count clinches by bus or train that is in the same ROW (e.g. a median or with shared traffic signals). Helps with urban clinching, especially since car rental is a bit too expensive at my age.

Ramps count as part of the highway to me. I don't see the point in being pedantic about what technically counts or not. I mean, why stop at having to drive over every inch of the length of the highway? Why not require driving the entirety in each lane, both ways? Or taking every exit and entering on every on-ramp? Only then will you have truly experienced all of the route... What about when they repave part of it, and now you technically haven't been on that section of the asphalt, do you have to go drive on it again?  :spin:

Quote from: bm7 on February 18, 2021, 09:01:09 PM
Ramps count as part of the highway to me. I don't see the point in being pedantic about what technically counts or not. I mean, why stop at having to drive over every inch of the length of the highway? Why not require driving the entirety in each lane, both ways? Or taking every exit and entering on every on-ramp? Only then will you have truly experienced all of the route... What about when they repave part of it, and now you technically haven't been on that section of the asphalt, do you have to go drive on it again?  :spin:

Don't forget you must also ride all four shoulders, use every "official vehicles only" turnaround, use every lane of every ramp, and also see every single sign in both directions with no exceptions.  :thumbsup:

One of the things I sometimes consider when clinching highways is what I call a "Sight Clinch" - that is, when you can see the road from where you are and it is impractical to actually drive on said road.  I take these on a "case by case" basis.

Here are some examples of when I would definitely allow a "sight clinch":

• Getting off and back on at an interchange when I exit the highway to get gas or food.
• Getting off and back on at a "typical" rest area.
• Being on one carriageway where there are multiple ones in the same direction (think I-270 north of Washington DC).
• Seeing the southbound carriageway when traveling northbound - i.e., don't have to clinch both directions.
• A bridge replacement adjacent to the old bridge, or a re-alignment to smooth out some curves.  Is it approximately the same right of way?
• Traveling one direction on a pair of one way streets in a city.

These may on a case by case basis - have I kept with the "spirit" of the clinch? :

• A route that travels up to (or through) an entrance to a military base, an international border, or some other barrier that I would not be allowed to pass through.
• A short detour due to road closure (e.g., for an accident or for construction)

These would most likely not be allowed:

• A route number that has been significantly re-routed onto another right of way and serving new towns.  Basically I am counting asphalt as opposed to a number.
  

I don't worry about which vehicle.  Having had a drivers license for 46 years, I have obviously owned several cars.  Rental cars count too.  Buses do not.  I don't have to be the driver, but I need to be aware of the trip, and have a 100% memory of the trip.  I will go back in time to about my teens, as long as the memory is present.

I also try to avoid an "in-and-out" maneuver to get a clinch (drive a short distance and U-turn).

A footnote:  Even as a little kid, I always wanted to know where we were going, and how we were going to get there :)  I started getting my Dad's hand-me-down roadmaps when I was still in elementary school.

Clinching highways is supposed to be fun.  Sure, you should have some ground rules.  But you shouldn't be so pedantic that is ceases to be enjoyable.

Quote from: dlsterner on February 18, 2021, 10:56:03 PM
Clinching highways is supposed to be fun.  Sure, you should have some ground rules.  But you shouldn't be so pedantic that is ceases to be enjoyable.

And yet the impression I'm getting is that those with 'pedantic' route-clinching rules actually do enjoy abiding by them.

With the exception of incomplete interchanges (where you can get off at one point, but cannot get on until another interchange), I would count getting off and on at the same exit as a continuous route.


Of course, with the routes I've counted as clinched, I have driven over them, multiple times.  So, regardless of the rules, I can safely say that I have completed the entire constructed route.  The sole Exception is H-201, which I only traveled in one direction, from H-1 to H-1.

Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:01:02 AM

Quote from: dlsterner on February 18, 2021, 10:56:03 PM
Clinching highways is supposed to be fun.  Sure, you should have some ground rules.  But you shouldn't be so pedantic that is ceases to be enjoyable.

And yet the impression I'm getting is that those with 'pedantic' route-clinching rules actually do enjoy abiding by them.

Agreed.  I am pretty picky about the rules, but I actually enjoy following them.  I don't keep a log, I just memorize it. 

For instance, for a very long time I had driven all of I-10 except for the portion between I-215 in San Bernardino and I-110 in downtown Los Angeles.  That was simple enough for me to remember, and I just kept saying the next time I drove to Los Angeles I was going to take I-10 all the way to Santa Monica and that would cover that.  I didn't lose sleep over it and it didn't make driving not fun because of it.  It took about 15 years for me to have a reason to drive that missing section.  It was great to finally do it and cover all or I-10, but before that I wasn't a wreck.

Another example is I have all of I-95 in Florida covered except a section from FL-404 to FL-405 where my wife and I went to Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral.  It was my first and only trip on that part of I-95, so maybe skipping it is a missed opportunity, but eh.  At the time I didn't say, we need to backtrack to cover that area.  I just said, I am sure I will find another trip in the future that will take me over that stretch of the highway.   It's that kinda of thinking that I actually love.  Thinking later of a trip that could possibly take me over the missing segment.  My wife and I would love to go to the Keys again, so I am sure we will get a chance to drive that portion.  Again, no lost sleep and no worried minds. 

Quote from: JoePCool14 on February 18, 2021, 10:23:57 PM
Don't forget you must also ride all four shoulders, use every "official vehicles only" turnaround, use every lane of every ramp, and also see every single sign in both directions with no exceptions.  :thumbsup:

Remember, this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24818.msg2408151#msg2408151) does exist.

I don't actively track highway clinches, although I have in the past gone back and reconstructed them and used that as the basis of some weekend wandering.

However, when "collecting" things (e.g. county-counting, or my various wallpaper-chasing in ham radio), my philosophy is that the rules I follow should not be burdenosme.  If it's not fun, then why the heck am I doing it?

To that end, if I were actively tracking clinches, I would agree with the concept of "sight clinches" / not fussing with missed mainline pavement caused by stopping for fuel or a bio-break, etc.  My rules would focus on routes traveled upon, regardless of whether I was driver or passenger, but I would not give myself cross-modal credit (e.g. riding mass transit rail in a highway's right-of-way).

Where I might be inclined to take a pickier line is when it comes to realignments.  I wouldn't concern myself over "very minor" realignments (moving a route a couple of blocks in a town) or twinning a route in essentially the same right of way, but when there is enough of a change to give a new character to a highway (e.g. a new bypass of a town, or moving the route from a surface road to a new controlled-access or divided highway in a very-similar-but-mostly-not-overlapping ROW), I would no longer be able to count it in good faith.

Similarly, with route renumberings, I think it would depend on a "character of the route" criteria.  For example, when I-865 was created in Indiana, I mentally gave myself credit because I had traveled that stretch of roadway many times in the past, and the new number didn't really do anything about changing the character of that highway oddity.   However, depending on the context, I don't know that I'd give myself any credit for having traveled I-69 between Indianapolis and Memphis, even though I have traveled on roadways that have become / are becoming I-69, because I-69 south of Indianapolis is a "new thing".  But, I don't feel the same way about portions of US78 that were upgraded to I-22, probably because the "new thing" was the construction of the freeway, rather than the interstate shield and number per sé.

Quote from: MikeTheActuary on February 19, 2021, 12:31:51 PM
I don't actively track highway clinches, although I have in the past gone back and reconstructed them and used that as the basis of some weekend wandering.

However, when "collecting" things (e.g. county-counting, or my various wallpaper-chasing in ham radio), my philosophy is that the rules I follow should not be burdenosme.  If it's not fun, then why the heck am I doing it?

To that end, if I were actively tracking clinches, I would agree with the concept of "sight clinches" / not fussing with missed mainline pavement caused by stopping for fuel or a bio-break, etc.  My rules would focus on routes traveled upon, regardless of whether I was driver or passenger, but I would not give myself cross-modal credit (e.g. riding mass transit rail in a highway's right-of-way).

Where I might be inclined to take a pickier line is when it comes to realignments.  I wouldn't concern myself over "very minor" realignments (moving a route a couple of blocks in a town) or twinning a route in essentially the same right of way, but when there is enough of a change to give a new character to a highway (e.g. a new bypass of a town, or moving the route from a surface road to a new controlled-access or divided highway in a very-similar-but-mostly-not-overlapping ROW), I would no longer be able to count it in good faith.

Similarly, with route renumberings, I think it would depend on a "character of the route" criteria.  For example, when I-865 was created in Indiana, I mentally gave myself credit because I had traveled that stretch of roadway many times in the past, and the new number didn't really do anything about changing the character of that highway oddity.   However, depending on the context, I don't know that I'd give myself any credit for having traveled I-69 between Indianapolis and Memphis, even though I have traveled on roadways that have become / are becoming I-69, because I-69 south of Indianapolis is a "new thing".  But, I don't feel the same way about portions of US78 that were upgraded to I-22, probably because the "new thing" was the construction of the freeway, rather than the interstate shield and number per sé.

Thinking about this a little more... I think my frame of reference would have to be that of a printed road atlas or printed state highway map.

If I can point to a line in an atlas/on a map that is as innately connected to a particular highway number as when I traveled upon it (even if the number has changed), then I could count that.

However, if I could say "I have traveled on this line on the map that that used to be part of the route, but is no longer" or "this is an entirely new route, comprised of some stretches of highway I may or may not have traveled upon"...then I wouldn't give myself credit for that route for that prior travel.   But if there were a minor realignment in the route as part of an upgrade that wouldn't be clearly differentiated from the old alignment in Rand McNally...I'd probably continue to count it.

(I started down this path of thought by considering the upgrades to US 431 between Phenix City and Dothan vice the updates to US 84 in Coffee County.  I didn't mentally lose credit for US 431 when it was upgraded, but I did for the US 84 bypasses of New Brockton and Elba.  Maybe that's a function more of familiarity than of lines on the map -- I used to live in Enterprise, AL while working in Elba, AL -- but my mind went fishing for a somewhat more objective criterion.)

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 19, 2021, 11:21:25 AM

Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:01:02 AM

Quote from: dlsterner on February 18, 2021, 10:56:03 PM
Clinching highways is supposed to be fun.  Sure, you should have some ground rules.  But you shouldn't be so pedantic that is ceases to be enjoyable.

And yet the impression I'm getting is that those with 'pedantic' route-clinching rules actually do enjoy abiding by them.

Agreed.  I am pretty picky about the rules, but I actually enjoy following them.  I don't keep a log, I just memorize it. 

I concur. It is fun. I've had a number of adventures working my way around gas stops and the like, since I prefer not to back-track directly on the interstate to cover the interchange. As a result, I've seen a number of places I would otherwise never have, making the experience of clinching, at least in part, a stop-and-smell-the-roses sort of thing.

Also, just for the record, I would prefer thorough over pedantic.

I see no reason not to allow getting off the freeway and getting back on at the same interchange. Disallowing this maneuver becomes especially tedious and not fun if located in a region way out in the middle of nowhere with long distances between exits. Of course, there will be disputes on how to define "same interchange", but places where this arises are almost always going to be urban areas where it's easy to backtrack a bit if necessary

I'm pretty liberal with clinching - any time of day, driver or passenger, any age. I don't see why I have to be the driver if I know where I'm going. It's really more a "where have I been" thing than anything else. Same goes for county collecting.

Main reason I don't think age matters is that the roads I travel on has been something I've paid close attention to really ever since I can remember. When I was in first or second grade, for a school writing project I described the exact routes and exit numbers my family had taken to get from Salt Lake to the Grand Canyon over spring break. If that trip doesn't count towards clinching I don't know what does.

Highways:

• If I've been in a car on the road covering the mileage (doesn't matter driving or riding)
• Entering and exiting at the same point counts
• The couple of times I've encountered a closed road, if I can see whole closed portion, I count it

Counties, States, & Countries:

• If I've crossed the border in a vehicle or on foot
• If I've had a layover at an airport there and gotten off the plane to enter the airport

Chris

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 18, 2021, 03:07:40 PM
I am pretty liberal with my rules too, probably more liberal than most people. Because the whole point of clinching a road is to say "Yeah, I've seen all this road has to offer" and be satisfied with that. If I am required to follow a bunch of fiddly rules to make sure I covered every scrap of pavement then it just becomes tedious and I'm doing this for me, not to prove anything to anyone else. And I'm a lazy individual, so my rules reflect that.

So interchanges are treated as points. If I get off at exit 62 and get back on at 62 then there is no gap.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 18, 2021, 01:48:35 PM
I've counted two clinches based on full closures of the highways we were doing because the closure was only a couple blocks and I could see all of what I missed ("sight clinched").

I would do the same. Hell, I would count time spent on Texas-style frontage roads as counting toward the freeway (especially if there were missing ramps causing me to ride down to the next interchange to get back on).

I don't need to reclinch a route if it's realigned, so long as the realignment is roughly within the same corridor. So if they move the road to a new street in the same city, or build a new carriageway roughly parallel to the old one to add a new bridge or remove some curves or hills, as long as it still generally serves the same area, I'm not going back to see it unless something specifically piques my interest about it. The idea is I clinched the route as it existed at the time, so it's done. If they do a big enough realignment where it now serves entirely different towns, then I would need to redo it–unless it was moved to be concurrent with something I've already done. Basically the only way something would get "unclinched" is through a pure extension along roads I've never done before.

I count clinches as a passenger. I count clinches from before I could drive. What can I say, I was in band and boy scouts, so I got to see a lot of roads that way. I was enough of a roadgeek as a kid that I remember the routes, so why shouldn't I count it?

I do all of these, and I'm even ok with a "pre-clinch."  For example, I drove U.S. 78 from Birmingham to Memphis in 2002. It wasn't I 22 yet, but most of it was already interstate standard, so I absolutely count it as clinching most of I-22. If I were to drive it again the only part of the experience that would be different is the shield. Same for I 49 in Missouri. From 435 to Nevada it's been interstate standard or close since the 90s, so I don't feel compelled to drive it again.

Dirty cheaters.

Regarding highway segments on the Travel Mapping.net site:

- I count any road segment traveled over the past several decades, whether as a driver or passenger.  This includes recalled journeys where I was a passenger, which includes selected family vacations and moves between states.  I've also gone on multi-day bus tours of historic sites, and those routes "count".  I also have counted two road segments where I walked the (short) routes, in downtown Salt Lake City and Atlantic City.
- If I use an off/on-ramp at the same location, I don't treat that as a "break" in the route unless the on and off ramps are separate data points on the Travel mapping site.
- I treat clinching rail travel as distinctly separate, even where a rail line is parallel to, or in the median of, a numbered highway.  In the Boston area I have ridden the MBTA line (ex B&A/NYC/PC) from South Station through the Back Bay west to Worcester, and have clinched that.  But I have never traveled the parallel I-90 for a stretch in that area, so I do not count that.
- Regarding counties, I have clinched all where I have traveled by highway and/or rail.  One exception: Whatcom County in northwest Washington state.  I have never set foot or traveled on any segment of that county, but I have traveled on the British Columbia (Canada) ferry that connects Vancouver Island to the mainland, and the ferry route traverses a corner of that US county in the water.

For me to clinch a county...
Driving or by train...simply crossing a line that the highway or rail goes over.
Flying...I need to actually be on the physical ground. Feet on the tarmac count. If it is a layover with the same plane, I need to debark the plane for it to count. Once in the gate area, I need to buy something like a drink or food in the terminal.

A "super" clinch is being in the county seat anywhere in the city limits. So for instance, being at O'Hare does clinch Cook County since Chicago is the seat. But not DuPage County despite some of the southwest side runways going into DuPage.

Quote from: Rothman on February 20, 2021, 10:56:58 AM
Dirty cheaters.

Which is it?  Do you count dirty cheaters when clinching?  Or do you not count dirty cheaters when clinching?  Based on the wording of the topic, your post is ambiguous.

I never count clinches or anything.....if I did a whole roadway one direction it would look completely different than the other.  plus being married my wife wouldn't tolerate my road habits.  just trying to get to 50 states...10 to go.

Quote from: hobsini2 on February 20, 2021, 05:06:58 PM

Once in the gate area, I need to buy something like a drink or food in the terminal.

Better have receipts!

Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2021, 10:27:07 PM

Quote from: hobsini2 on February 20, 2021, 05:06:58 PM

Once in the gate area, I need to buy something like a drink or food in the terminal.

Better have receipts!

Receipts or it didn't happen!

for interstates I count as a clinch all drivable miles, entry at the same exit and everything up to the last exit before a national border or a tollbooth.  i also count as a clinch of an interstate just covering all of those miles in one direction. there have been a few instances where if there was no cumbersome double back where I backtracked to cover the interstate I didn't cover by taking the exit.

I count as a state visit just crossing the border even if I do nothing in the state, so technically the only lower 48 place I have yet to visit is louisiana.

My clinch criteria:


1. I must be driving in order to clinch a route

2. One direction or the other is acceptable

3. Driving the entire length at once is not necessary

4. The starting point does not matter if the entire length is not driven at once

5. The mainline on controlled-access highways must be driven straight through all interchanges, unless the route exits itself

6. The mainline on secondary roads must be driven straight through all intersections

7. Once a segment of a route is driven, minor realignments do not matter, but major realignments and extensions do

8. Losing a route due to wrong, missing or confusing signage is not acceptable

9. Construction zones are acceptable, but closures are not

10. Nighttime is acceptable, though daytime is preferred

11. Pulling over is acceptable, though staying on the mainline is preferred

12. Once a route is clinched, that status is indefinite

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 22, 2021, 10:29:26 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2021, 10:27:07 PM

Quote from: hobsini2 on February 20, 2021, 05:06:58 PM

Once in the gate area, I need to buy something like a drink or food in the terminal.

Better have receipts!

Receipts or it didn't happen!

Nah, receipts fade. Photographs are much more permanent.

One thing I'm genuinely curious about in some of y'all's criteria (Guntella's comment bring this to mind) is why you feel strongly that you must be driving. As others have noted, as a passenger you're more free to look around and actually see the road and any scenery (or lack thereof) along it, and certainly it's a lot safer to take pictures from a moving car as a passenger rather than as a driver.

Quote from: Gnutella on March 04, 2021, 06:04:07 AM
My clinch criteria:


1. I must be driving in order to clinch a route

2. One direction or the other is acceptable

3. Driving the entire length at once is not necessary

4. The starting point does not matter if the entire length is not driven at once

5. The mainline on controlled-access highways must be driven straight through all interchanges, unless the route exits itself

6. The mainline on secondary roads must be driven straight through all intersections

7. Once a segment of a route is driven, minor realignments do not matter, but major realignments and extensions do

8. Losing a route due to wrong, missing or confusing signage is not acceptable

9. Construction zones are acceptable, but closures are not

10. Nighttime is acceptable, though daytime is preferred

11. Pulling over is acceptable, though staying on the mainline is preferred

12. Once a route is clinched, that status is indefinite

What about pulling into scenic overlooks?

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2021, 07:39:49 AM
One thing I'm genuinely curious about in some of y'all's criteria (Guntella's comment bring this to mind) is why you feel strongly that you must be driving. As others have noted, as a passenger you're more free to look around and actually see the road and any scenery (or lack thereof) along it, and certainly it's a lot safer to take pictures from a moving car as a passenger rather than as a driver.

I've been wondering the same thing. We've had the whole "pictures are just as easy when you're driving" discussion before, but even setting that aside, it doesn't seem like there's any inherent disadvantage to not being behind the wheel (unless you're in the back seat of a bus or something, that's a little different).

I like to think I'm attentive as either the driver or the passenger, but it's unavoidable that what I pay attention to is very different. As a driver, I'm paying attention to intuitive things like maintaining a consistent speed, the overall traffic flow, and the other cars on the road, while as a passenger I'm paying attention to more specific details like signage, lane configurations, traffic on the other side of the highway, etc. In terms of taking in and remembering the route itself, I'd actually prefer to be a passenger, but I don't see how it would really matter either way.

Quote from: webny99 on March 04, 2021, 08:00:59 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2021, 07:39:49 AM
One thing I'm genuinely curious about in some of y'all's criteria (Guntella's comment bring this to mind) is why you feel strongly that you must be driving. As others have noted, as a passenger you're more free to look around and actually see the road and any scenery (or lack thereof) along it, and certainly it's a lot safer to take pictures from a moving car as a passenger rather than as a driver.

I've been wondering the same thing. We've had the whole "pictures are just as easy when you're driving" discussion before, but even setting that aside, it doesn't seem like there's any inherent disadvantage to not being behind the wheel (unless you're in the back seat of a bus or something, that's a little different).

I like to think I'm attentive as either the driver or the passenger, but it's unavoidable that what I pay attention to is very different. As a driver, I'm paying attention to intuitive things like maintaining a consistent speed, the overall traffic flow, and the other cars on the road, while as a passenger I'm paying attention to more specific details like signage, lane configurations, traffic on the other side of the highway, etc. In terms of taking in and remembering the route itself, I'd actually prefer to be a passenger, but I don't see how it would really matter either way.

The point you make in your second paragraph is similar to something I said earlier in the thread about a comment my father made in 1989. My father was extremely familiar with the roads in question (the "traditional" I-95/New Jersey Turnpike route from Fairfax County to Brooklyn), but he had always been the driver on all of our family trips up to that point and his comment was interesting to me back then when I was learning to drive. ("Drove most of the way" denotes that he wouldn't let me drive in New York City, especially seeing as how I couldn't yet parallel park, so I pulled off at the last service area prior to the Goethals Bridge and he took over the driving from there.)

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2021, 12:09:07 PM
....

Regarding some people saying "I must be the driver," in the previous thread I linked above, someone made the good point that as a passenger you are better able to look around and focus on things other than strictly driving. I remember when I was 15 and had my learner's permit and we took a family trip to New York, I drove most of the way and my father commented on how nice it was to get to look around and see what was along those roads. He had always been the driver prior to that trip.

I logged a lot of miles on family trips as a passenger between ages 8 and 15, so there's no way I'd exclude all those miles. There were a couple times we drove at night and I slept and I didn't count those miles since I didn't actually see them.

Cash Less tolling bridges while driving a rental car on a route you got done on both sides.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2021, 07:39:49 AM
One thing I'm genuinely curious about in some of y'all's criteria (Guntella's comment bring this to mind) is why you feel strongly that you must be driving. As others have noted, as a passenger you're more free to look around and actually see the road and any scenery (or lack thereof) along it, and certainly it's a lot safer to take pictures from a moving car as a passenger rather than as a driver.

In my case, I was very interested in roads, and where I've been, since being about 8 years old or so.  I would follow along and watch where we were driving on family vacations, and we kept written logs of the routes taken.  So because of this, I do not require that I be the driver (although for most of my age 18+ driving I have been the driver).

I always have required that I be aware of where I was, so any time spent napping in the back seat wouldn't count.  But if I napped, I would miss things!  So I rarely, if ever, did.

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 04, 2021, 08:15:32 AM
I logged a lot of miles on family trips as a passenger between ages 8 and 15, so there's no way I'd exclude all those miles.

My clinch of US 25 is dependent upon a family vacation we took in my childhood. So is my clinch of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2021, 07:39:49 AM
One thing I'm genuinely curious about in some of y'all's criteria (Guntella's comment bring this to mind) is why you feel strongly that you must be driving. As others have noted, as a passenger you're more free to look around and actually see the road and any scenery (or lack thereof) along it, and certainly it's a lot safer to take pictures from a moving car as a passenger rather than as a driver.

I used to count them as different "levels" of clinch. My old marked-up maps, when I used to track clinches that way, used yellow highlighter for passenger and pink highlighter for driven. They both still counted toward a clinch of a route, though. Of course, Travel Mapping doesn't allow you to show any distinction between different clinch segments, and the vast majority of my clinches are now from me driving, so it's whatever.

Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:01:02 AM

Quote from: dlsterner on February 18, 2021, 10:56:03 PM
Clinching highways is supposed to be fun.  Sure, you should have some ground rules.  But you shouldn't be so pedantic that is ceases to be enjoyable.

And yet the impression I'm getting is that those with 'pedantic' route-clinching rules actually do enjoy abiding by them.

Yeah, that's part of the fun- what's thorough enough to satisfy your own personal need for cataloging your travels without making it too cumbersome to be enjoyable. I track highways with a blue marker on a normal-sized Rand McNally paper atlas, so I just highlight the route I traveled without worrying about where I got off for gas, etc. I don't care about driving or not since I shared duties with my wife or friends on long trips. Counties are on mob-rule, and I don't count airport layovers or overnight train rides when I was sleeping.

In 2018 I clinched US 138. There was a full closure of it in Ovid, which I ignored the posted detour of US 385 and followed into town anyway. The local detour was a one-block workaround. I could see over the dirt pile back to the stop sign I had just come from. I called it good. I was happy.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 07:40:25 AM

Quote from: Gnutella on March 04, 2021, 06:04:07 AM
My clinch criteria:


1. I must be driving in order to clinch a route

2. One direction or the other is acceptable

3. Driving the entire length at once is not necessary

4. The starting point does not matter if the entire length is not driven at once

5. The mainline on controlled-access highways must be driven straight through all interchanges, unless the route exits itself

6. The mainline on secondary roads must be driven straight through all intersections

7. Once a segment of a route is driven, minor realignments do not matter, but major realignments and extensions do

8. Losing a route due to wrong, missing or confusing signage is not acceptable

9. Construction zones are acceptable, but closures are not

10. Nighttime is acceptable, though daytime is preferred

11. Pulling over is acceptable, though staying on the mainline is preferred

12. Once a route is clinched, that status is indefinite

What about pulling into scenic overlooks?

If it involves a ramp, see rule #5. If it involves a turn, see rule #6. If it involves stopping on the shoulder, see rule #11.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 04, 2021, 08:15:32 AM
I logged a lot of miles on family trips as a passenger between ages 8 and 15, so there's no way I'd exclude all those miles.

My clinch of US 25 is dependent upon a family vacation we took in my childhood. So is my clinch of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

What was the routing of the old Blue Ridge Pkwy?

Lately, I’ve been traveling US 20 (the longest US highway) end-to-end in Street View, and someday after COVID is over I might do it in real life, if I save up enough money. On my trip, I plan on taking the business routes or other former alignments of the highway through towns that the mainline currently bypasses.

I would count that towards clinching US 20 (or really, any other US highway I decide to drive end-to-end) because my philosophy is that the whole point of such a trip would be to see what there is to see along the route, a big part of which is the towns. I might follow the old route through a town to grab some lunch, get some gas, or just see what the town looks like. Based on that line of thinking, I would consider that to count towards clinching the route even if it does involve turning off the official highway. That’s just my point of view, though. (In addition, regarding business routes: they are, after all, what the road through would have been back in the day.)

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 05, 2021, 07:47:02 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2021, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 04, 2021, 08:15:32 AM
I logged a lot of miles on family trips as a passenger between ages 8 and 15, so there's no way I'd exclude all those miles.

My clinch of US 25 is dependent upon a family vacation we took in my childhood. So is my clinch of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

What was the routing of the old Blue Ridge Pkwy?

I don't follow your question. What I was saying is that I got much of the mileage for my clinches of those two routes on family vacations. On a trip to Florida, we took US 25 from its southern terminus all the way north to I-26. I was a passenger in the back seat of the family car. On another family vacation, we took the Blue Ridge Parkway from its terminus in Virginia to the Asheville area. Again, I was a passenger in the back seat. I filled in the other portions of those roads later when I was driving. If I had to count driving as a criteria for a clinch, I couldn't count those two roads. But the fact remains that I have traveled every mile of the routes as they existed at the time I was on them. So they count.

On the BRP trip, we overnighted somewhere in the vicinity of Boone. The next morning dawned extremely foggy, to the point where you couldn't see any scenery. Our intent was to follow the route all the way to Cherokee, but my dad bailed at Asheville and took US 19 on to Cherokee. I ended up backfilling the part we missed many years later.

Say a route in a faraway state is 100 miles long, and you do all of it from mile 0 to mile 95. (You're traveling with one of those people that don't get it.) Clearly not a clinch. Five years later, the DOT truncates the easternmost 5 miles, putting the terminus where you turned off of it. Would you count it as clinched?

On the one hand, you traveled all of what is now considered the route. On the other, you deliberately (or were coerced, whatever) didn't travel all of the route as it existed at the time you were there, and you didn't go back and do anything to secure the clinch (the DOT did it for you).

Do you count it?

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 07, 2021, 03:37:47 PM
Say a route in a faraway state is 100 miles long, and you do all of it from mile 0 to mile 95. (You're traveling with one of those people that don't get it.) Clearly not a clinch. Five years later, the DOT truncates the easternmost 5 miles, putting the terminus where you turned off of it. Would you count it as clinched?

On the one hand, you traveled all of what is now considered the route. On the other, you deliberately (or were coerced, whatever) didn't travel all of the route as it existed at the time you were there, and you didn't go back and do anything to secure the clinch (the DOT did it for you).

Do you count it?

Not 5 miles, but a close real life example to that is I-70 in Maryland. It was truncated a couple of years ago from the park and ride (MM 94) to the I-695 interchange (MM 91), which is where most of the drivers would exit off I-70 anyways.

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 07, 2021, 04:15:50 PM
Not 5 miles, but a close real life example to that is I-70 in Maryland. It was truncated a couple of years ago from the park and ride (MM 94) to the I-695 interchange (MM 91), which is where most of the drivers would exit off I-70 anyways.

Except the truncation never happened. AASHTO authorized the truncation, but it was never carried out. The state canceled the truncation, once plans for a new light-rail station replacing the park-and-ride fell through.

There still is error signage on I-70 EB west of exit 91, indicating that I-70 ends at I-695.

For an example from my own travels, it bothered me that I had not clinched CA 111 because I had not continued into Mexico at the Calexico border crossing, instead taking the last U-turn before the border. (That is something I am more fussy about than many other forum members. But I was driving a rental car I was not allowed to take across the border.) CBP took care of that problem for me by taking the southernmost route segment from Caltrans, then closing it and replacing it with a new crossing (one block to the west, from Cesar Chavez Blvd. rather than Imperial Ave.) never under Caltrans' control and not added back to CA 111. I cheerfully went along with that truncation. 

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 07, 2021, 03:37:47 PM
Say a route in a faraway state is 100 miles long, and you do all of it from mile 0 to mile 95. (You're traveling with one of those people that don't get it.) Clearly not a clinch. Five years later, the DOT truncates the easternmost 5 miles, putting the terminus where you turned off of it. Would you count it as clinched?

On the one hand, you traveled all of what is now considered the route. On the other, you deliberately (or were coerced, whatever) didn't travel all of the route as it existed at the time you were there, and you didn't go back and do anything to secure the clinch (the DOT did it for you).

Do you count it?

Yes, if I traveled all of the route as it currently exists I consider it clinched. Conversely, if a route got extended after I clinched it I consider it un-clinched.

I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 02:17:45 PM
I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

What isn't there for a reason?

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 02:17:45 PM
I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^{[1 (https://goo.gl/maps/koc7uwgBjL4W669j7)]}?

I can't remember where exactly, but I also remember a "scenic view" sign somewhere in southwestern Kansas that's basically just a view of a wind farm on flatlands.

I mean, it's not a particularly ugly view either. You and I are used to western Kansas/Oklahoma views, but not everyone is–I'd imagine someone like webny99 would find that view stupendous.

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 06:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 02:17:45 PM
I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^{[1 (https://goo.gl/maps/koc7uwgBjL4W669j7)]}?

I can't remember where exactly, but I also remember a "scenic view" sign somewhere in southwestern Kansas that's basically just a view of a wind farm on flatlands.

I wasn't asking you.

For international borders, I would count turning around at the last exit.

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 06:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM
What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^{[1 (https://goo.gl/maps/koc7uwgBjL4W669j7)]}?

I can't remember where exactly, but I also remember a "scenic view" sign somewhere in southwestern Kansas that's basically just a view of a wind farm on flatlands.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2021, 07:04:24 PM
I mean, it's not a particularly ugly view either. You and I are used to western Kansas/Oklahoma views, but not everyone is–I'd imagine someone like webny99 would find that view stupendous.

(Is this bait? I'm not sure. But anyways, here goes...)

Stupendous is a stretch, but it is very different than what I'm used to (hilly compared to North Dakota! :biggrin:), and I certainly wouldn't rule out pulling in there should I ever find myself in Dodge City.

When I read kphoger's post and clicked on the link, what immediately came to mind was this "scenic overlook" (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8385811,-101.7759781,3a,90y,33.37h,91.38t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipON8_wv5K6d12LOnl8WiDNX0tgNPwSasE2cOTc!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipON8_wv5K6d12LOnl8WiDNX0tgNPwSasE2cOTc%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya252-ro0-fo100!7i7680!8i3840) on I-90 in South Dakota. But not in a bad way, though - in fact, in a great way: When visiting the Badlands a few years ago, we happened to be passing right by that spot just as the sun was coming up, before 5 AM on a July morning. It couldn't have been a more perfect spot to pull in and watch the sunrise. It was one of the most unique and beautiful sunrises I've ever witnessed, in a part of the country I'd never been before, and an atmosphere I'll never forget, with miles and miles of endless prairie and hay bales and grazing bison spread out before us. I decided right then and there never to snub a "scenic overlook" again, and I hope many more first-time visitors to South Dakota get to experience exactly what we did.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 22, 2021, 10:29:26 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2021, 10:27:07 PM

Quote from: hobsini2 on February 20, 2021, 05:06:58 PM

Once in the gate area, I need to buy something like a drink or food in the terminal.

Better have receipts!

Receipts or it didn't happen!

The only way I know I have been in Benton Harbor Michigan was the receipt from the meal stop from when I rode the overnight Greyhound from Detroit to Chicago. I was asleep before, after and during the meal stop.

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 06:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 02:17:45 PM
I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^{[1 (https://goo.gl/maps/koc7uwgBjL4W669j7)]}?

I can't remember where exactly, but I also remember a "scenic view" sign somewhere in southwestern Kansas that's basically just a view of a wind farm on flatlands.

Cool! Now I have something else to add to my trip to Kansas!

Jim

I almost feel like not visiting a scenic overlook almost kills the clinch.

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 06:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 02:17:45 PM
I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^{[1 (https://goo.gl/maps/koc7uwgBjL4W669j7)]}?

I can't remember where exactly, but I also remember a "scenic view" sign somewhere in southwestern Kansas that's basically just a view of a wind farm on flatlands.

I wasn't asking you.

I was answering you.  Next time, whisper so other people can't hear.

---

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 09, 2021, 07:43:13 AM
I almost feel like not visiting a scenic overlook almost kills the clinch.

Now, that actually makes just as much sense as the opposing viewpoint.

Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2021, 11:17:27 AM

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 06:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 02:17:45 PM
I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^{[1 (https://goo.gl/maps/koc7uwgBjL4W669j7)]}?

I can't remember where exactly, but I also remember a "scenic view" sign somewhere in southwestern Kansas that's basically just a view of a wind farm on flatlands.

I wasn't asking you.

I was answering you.  Next time, whisper so other people can't hear.

Next time don't interrupt a conversation.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 09, 2021, 07:43:13 AM
I almost feel like not visiting a scenic overlook almost kills the clinch.

But what doesn't serve a purpose?

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 08:48:55 PM
I wasn't asking you.

(https://i.imgur.com/qGhiEIe.gif)

Seriously, I didn't get the full meaning of the response, either.

I've pulled over at a few scenic overlooks that were so overgrown with weeds and brush which obscured anything interesting, but usually there's something to them.

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM
What isn't there for a reason?

Male nipples? (https://questionsonislam.com/question/what-wisdom-behind-existence-nipples-men-can-you-answer-thesis-evolutionists-mens-nipples)

So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

For me, if I can see the point where I get back on from where I get off due to an exit ramp, gas station, restaurant, scenic overlook, or anything else, I do not consider it to be killing a clinch.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

The thread is about what you count or not count.  I don't think the goal is to have a consensus on anything.

Quote from: cabiness42 on March 10, 2021, 09:28:00 AM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

For me, if I can see the point where I get back on from where I get off due to an exit ramp, gas station, restaurant, scenic overlook, or anything else, I do not consider it to be killing a clinch.

This. If I got anal about missing a few hundred feet of highway because I pulled off for a great view I'd be missing the point of clinching in the first place. I don't clinch roads just to fill in lines on a map - I do it to see new places.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

Not in my book. Neither does exiting for gas, food, or restrooms if you get back on at the same interchange. But at least one poster upthread says it does for him.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

Yes.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

no

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

If you think it does, then it does for you.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2021, 06:21:40 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

If you think it does, then it does for you.

If I think it kills the clinch, it kills it for everyone.

Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2021, 06:28:34 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2021, 06:21:40 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

If you think it does, then it does for you.

If I think it kills the clinch, it kills it for everyone.

If |1995hoo| thinks it doesn't kill the clinch, it completes it for everyone.

Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2021, 09:15:50 AM

Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2021, 06:28:34 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2021, 06:21:40 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

If you think it does, then it does for you.

If I think it kills the clinch, it kills it for everyone.

If |1995hoo| thinks it doesn't kill the clinch, it completes it for everyone.

Delusions of grandeur.

Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2021, 06:28:34 PM
If I think it kills the clinch, it kills it for everyone.

Quote from: Rothman on March 11, 2021, 04:45:00 PM
Delusions of grandeur.

très à propos    ;-)

Nobody's clinches are valid unless I was personally present to verify them.

Quote from: US 89 on March 11, 2021, 05:26:33 PM
Nobody's clinches are valid unless I was personally present to verify them.

Even ones from before you were born?

Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2021, 09:15:50 AM

Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2021, 06:28:34 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2021, 06:21:40 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 10, 2021, 09:25:12 AM
So what is the consensus on the scenic overlook question?  Does pulling off for the overlook kill a route clinch?

If you think it does, then it does for you.

If I think it kills the clinch, it kills it for everyone.

If |1995hoo| thinks it doesn't kill the clinch, it completes it for everyone.

I think everyone here has clinched the entire Interstate system.

You're all free! You never have to drive again!

Quote from: tq-07fan on March 08, 2021, 10:15:04 PM

Quote from: kphoger on March 08, 2021, 06:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 08, 2021, 02:17:45 PM
I count a scenic overlook as part of clinch as it is there for a reason.

What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^{[1 (https://goo.gl/maps/koc7uwgBjL4W669j7)]}?

I can't remember where exactly, but I also remember a "scenic view" sign somewhere in southwestern Kansas that's basically just a view of a wind farm on flatlands.

Cool! Now I have something else to add to my trip to Kansas!

Jim

At 7:30 pm CST today April 4th 2021 I got this one done! There was another view that was a view of flatness on US 56 or K156, I can't remember because I didn't stop. I guess it gives me a reason to come back.

Jim

I wonder how many on here who have "clinched" I-11 will need to re-clinch? :-D

Is that really a thing?

Some people only count a clinch if the designation was in place when they drove it. I clinch infrastructure, not routes, so a new designation doesn't affect that segment's status for my accounting, but others are allowed to feel differently.

Now, if you have driven US 95 up to Exit 96 at any time in the past 18 months, you're good even under that restrictive definition, as that's when the designation became official as far as the feds are concerned.

Which makes me question the value of numbered highway clinches.  Having to re-drive segments of freeway because a number changed seems super lame.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2024, 11:00:42 PMWhich makes me question the value of numbered highway clinches.  Having to re-drive segments of freeway because a number changed seems super lame.

If you want to clinch the route, you have to clinch the route.  If you want to settle for clinching pavement and be lazy that way, then that's okay, too -- it's kind of super lame, but it's okay.

Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2024, 11:33:34 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2024, 11:00:42 PMWhich makes me question the value of numbered highway clinches.  Having to re-drive segments of freeway because a number changed seems super lame.

If you want to clinch the route, you have to clinch the route.  If you want to settle for clinching pavement and be lazy that way, then that's okay, too -- it's kind of super lame, but it's okay.

By that logic one could hold clinches of US 95 and US 93 in Nevada but not I-11.  Can't speak for all of you, but that is beyond the level of anal I want to take this hobby.

Of course, I say that after having recently driven the entirety of US 95 between NV 157 and I-215 in the Las Vegas metro area on a recent trip.  Turns out my wife had a cousin move to the city and we kept going to where he lived.

If you're looking for ways to narrow the definition of a clinch, and actually useful one would be requiring that every road be driven in both directions. Often roads look quite different in the two directions, because you see different views. To me, clinching a road is about experiencing the entire length of the road, feeling what it's like to be in all those places. I re-clinch a road if a bypass is built (e.g., the Willits bypass on US-101, or even the CA-1 rebuild after the Mud Creek slide). But just because they changed some signs? That misses the point for me.

I recall catching a lot of heat on this forum for not driving to the MCBH military gate and turning around on I-H3.  I could see it plain as day approaching the last exit.  I definitely wasn't missing anything by actually going up to it. 

I get it that everyone treats this hobby different.  Things like this are just too obsessive to for me.  I generally just want to know where the interesting roads are and I don't really care if they have a numbered route signs attached to them.

I think it's a lot easier to clinch a county because those boundaries rarely change as opposed to highways getting new route numbers.

As for the case of I-11, I would say it is clinched if you have been on I-515 as well. Just my opinion.

My Travel Mapping highways list file has no entries for I-11 and I-580 in Nevada, and had none for I-515. Those routes are/were completely concurrent with US 93, US 95, and/or US 395, which I've clinched in their entirety. Travel Mapping autocredits me for clinches of I-11 and I-580, and I didn't have to lift a finger when I-11 was extended to absorb I-515 and over another part of US 95.

I do something like that for I-2 and the I-69 family in Texas.

Quote from: pderocco on June 03, 2024, 02:52:54 AMIf you're looking for ways to narrow the definition of a clinch, and actually useful one would be requiring that every road be driven in both directions. Often roads look quite different in the two directions, because you see different views. To me, clinching a road is about experiencing the entire length of the road, feeling what it's like to be in all those places. I re-clinch a road if a bypass is built (e.g., the Willits bypass on US-101, or even the CA-1 rebuild after the Mud Creek slide). But just because they changed some signs? That misses the point for me.

Or how about driving it during the day?  Twilight can be debated, but I've found that driving at night creates this "tunnel of darkness" effect that makes it impossible to judge the character of the scenery.  I've been going back and re-driving segments of roads I've only seen of at night for that reason.  Only A-20 left as far as what I've claimed on TM, though technically there's a piece of US 31/US 280 as well (which I de-listed as my drive might not meet my current standards for claiming a clinch on both, due to the ramp configuration).  I have a few that were heavy twilight (such as I-20 near there), but that doesn't seem to have the same "tunnel of darkness" effect, so I haven't marked them as "night clinches".

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2024, 08:34:52 AMI recall catching a lot of heat on this forum for not driving to the MCBH military gate and turning around on I-H3.  I could see it plain as day approaching the last exit.  I definitely wasn't missing anything by actually going up to it. 

I get it that everyone treats this hobby different.  Things like this are just too obsessive to for me.  I generally just want to know where the interesting roads are and I don't really care if they have a numbered route signs attached to them.

I would think that would be good enough.  I'll count sight clinches; I prefer to have driven at least part of the TM segment claimed, but will make exceptions for things like border crossings and military bases.  I agree that having to re-clinch a road that hasn't changed just because a new number was added is too much.

Posts from DenverBrian's on should probably be split from this thread.

And, for the record, Max is wrong.

Why?  The comment was meant in jest, but it is pretty topical pertaining to the mindset regarding I-11 in the road community.  I don't see a side conversation about clinches when it involves the titular highway as a problem. 

Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2024, 11:33:34 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2024, 11:00:42 PMWhich makes me question the value of numbered highway clinches.  Having to re-drive segments of freeway because a number changed seems super lame.

If you want to clinch the route, you have to clinch the route.  If you want to settle for clinching pavement and be lazy that way, then that's okay, too -- it's kind of super lame, but it's okay.

Well, I think if there is a paving project on something you've clinched, you should have to reclinch it too. :)

Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2024, 11:33:34 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2024, 11:00:42 PMWhich makes me question the value of numbered highway clinches.  Having to re-drive segments of freeway because a number changed seems super lame.

If you want to clinch the route, you have to clinch the route.

In Nevada, you can do whatever you want. :D

Quote from: pderocco on June 03, 2024, 02:52:54 AMIf you're looking for ways to narrow the definition of a clinch, and actually useful one would be requiring that every road be driven in both directions.

The seriousness with which one clinches should be part of a diagnosis tool for OCD or autism spectrum...

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2024, 08:34:52 AMI recall catching a lot of heat on this forum for not driving to the MCBH military gate and turning around on I-H3.  I could see it plain as day approaching the last exit.  I definitely wasn't missing anything by actually going up to it. 

I've done that at the Mexican or Canadian border quite a few times. If I can clearly see the booth where the customs guy sits, that's close enough.

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2024, 01:22:55 PM

Quote from: pderocco on June 03, 2024, 02:52:54 AMIf you're looking for ways to narrow the definition of a clinch, and actually useful one would be requiring that every road be driven in both directions. Often roads look quite different in the two directions, because you see different views. To me, clinching a road is about experiencing the entire length of the road, feeling what it's like to be in all those places. I re-clinch a road if a bypass is built (e.g., the Willits bypass on US-101, or even the CA-1 rebuild after the Mud Creek slide). But just because they changed some signs? That misses the point for me.

Or how about driving it during the day?  Twilight can be debated, but I've found that driving at night creates this "tunnel of darkness" effect that makes it impossible to judge the character of the scenery.  I've been going back and re-driving segments of roads I've only seen of at night for that reason.

For interesting roads, I always try to clinch during the day. I generally stop driving when the sun sets, grab some dinner, and go to a motel, then get up early. Back in the 90s I drove UT-14 from US-89 to Cedar City one night. Last year, I went out of my way to drive it during the day, and it was worth it. Great road. On the other hand, the fact that I drove some of I-40 in western Oklahoma and Texas at night is good enough for me because it's deadly dull anyway.

Anything new with good scenery is something I try to do in daylight. 

Quote from: pderocco on June 03, 2024, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2024, 08:34:52 AMI recall catching a lot of heat on this forum for not driving to the MCBH military gate and turning around on I-H3.  I could see it plain as day approaching the last exit.  I definitely wasn't missing anything by actually going up to it. 

I've done that at the Mexican or Canadian border quite a few times. If I can clearly see the booth where the customs guy sits, that's close enough.

Which booth?  I can think of an example where US customs is nearly a mile from the border and Canadian customs is nowhere to be seen even though the road is straight because the border is just that far away.  And that's nothing compared to YT 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@62.407428,-140.8604414,3a,28.1y,27.45h,88.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spVDgxXC0FhaY1szhDYwDYQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DpVDgxXC0FhaY1szhDYwDYQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D27.4464598040754%26pitch%3D1.0895941876997455%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu).

Quote from: pderocco on June 03, 2024, 07:58:43 PMFor interesting roads, I always try to clinch during the day. I generally stop driving when the sun sets, grab some dinner, and go to a motel, then get up early. Back in the 90s I drove UT-14 from US-89 to Cedar City one night. Last year, I went out of my way to drive it during the day, and it was worth it. Great road. On the other hand, the fact that I drove some of I-40 in western Oklahoma and Texas at night is good enough for me because it's deadly dull anyway.

How much of a big deal this is does vary by road.  The policy in my case was motivated by first driving VT 9 during the night and later experiencing it during the day and realizing that I didn't experience the road at all.  On the other hand, I recently day clinched ON 417 and found that it wasn't appreciably different than it was during the night clinch (and this wasn't even in an urban area, where there's often enough light to see the character of the scenery even at night).

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 03, 2024, 02:52:59 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2024, 11:33:34 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2024, 11:00:42 PMWhich makes me question the value of numbered highway clinches.  Having to re-drive segments of freeway because a number changed seems super lame.

If you want to clinch the route, you have to clinch the route.  If you want to settle for clinching pavement and be lazy that way, then that's okay, too -- it's kind of super lame, but it's okay.

Well, I think if there is a paving project on something you've clinched, you should have to reclinch it too. :)

Now, 'clinch' all of the pre-WWII routings on US 41 here in Wisconsin.   :-P

Mike

Quote from: pderocco on June 03, 2024, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2024, 08:34:52 AMI recall catching a lot of heat on this forum for not driving to the MCBH military gate and turning around on I-H3.  I could see it plain as day approaching the last exit.  I definitely wasn't missing anything by actually going up to it. 

I've done that at the Mexican or Canadian border quite a few times. If I can clearly see the booth where the customs guy sits, that's close enough.

Well, if one is concentrating on clinching an entire route, I've found that the majority, but not all times involve a trip through customs due to where the Interstate actually ends.  Had a really fun trip to Tijuana a few months ago clinching the southern end of I-5 that way...met some fun people.  Of course, it's much easier to cross into Canada than Mexico with one's personal car...

Quote from: mgk920 on June 03, 2024, 08:14:59 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 03, 2024, 02:52:59 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 02, 2024, 11:33:34 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2024, 11:00:42 PMWhich makes me question the value of numbered highway clinches.  Having to re-drive segments of freeway because a number changed seems super lame.

If you want to clinch the route, you have to clinch the route.  If you want to settle for clinching pavement and be lazy that way, then that's okay, too -- it's kind of super lame, but it's okay.

Well, I think if there is a paving project on something you've clinched, you should have to reclinch it too. :)

Now, 'clinch' all of the pre-WWII routings on US 41 here in Wisconsin.   :-P

Mike

Heh, I more or did something like that for several US Routes in Arizona and California.  Turns out there is a crap ton of weird old highway relics and fun driving segments. Problem is that it often requires one do some high clearance driving or hiking to get to the best stuff.

Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2024, 08:19:09 PMWell, if one is concentrating on clinching an entire route, I've found that the majority, but not all times involve a trip through customs due to where the Interstate actually ends.  Had a really fun trip to Tijuana a few months ago clinching the southern end of I-5 that way...met some fun people.  Of course, it's much easier to cross into Canada than Mexico with one's personal car...

I would say whether a sight clinch is possible depends on the interstate (ie, where customs is, how the ramps are, how the road curves, etc.).  I-91?  Go for it, looping around the interchange will even get you north of US customs!  I-89?  It's more of a stretch, but still possible.  I-81?  I know people have, but please don't.  I-190?  No way.

Mexico does have the advantage that not many interstates actually end at the border.  Just I-5, in fact, though I-110 may as well, since it ends at US customs.  I-69W is the only other one that comes close, but fortunately it ends here (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6004923,-99.5264777,3a,51.1y,291.76h,83.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCyKe_WjDDsEuoCQ-w3IODg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DCyKe_WjDDsEuoCQ-w3IODg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D291.76488238761186%26pitch%3D6.478276281380133%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu), as the World Trade Bridge is truck-only.  I-19, I-35, and I-69E end at at-grades a couple blocks away from the border; I-69C ends at I-2 relatively far away.

For I-190, my temporary solution was to view the bridge by parking along NY 104 and walking up the hill to view the roadway and the bridge.  Hopefully, I will rectify the situation eventually.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 03, 2024, 08:55:14 PMFor I-190, my temporary solution was to view the bridge by parking along NY 104 and walking up the hill to view the roadway and the bridge.  Hopefully, I will rectify the situation eventually.

Yeah, for years I didn't get that little itty-bitty part between Exit 25B and Canada.  And hey, with Canadians being valued at 70-75% of Americans, traveling through Canada is pretty sweet with that discount, anyway.  Toronto's worth a visit or two.

Tough crowd. :-D

To try to drag this back on topic: We have a somewhat rare situation with I-11. No new pavement, just new signing, along with a decommissioning of a previously signed spur route.

At some point (who knows when), as the route northwest of town has its at-grade intersections removed, we'll once again have a "new" section of I-11.

At this point, I'm very glad I'm not into clinching. :-D

Quote from: Rothman on June 03, 2024, 09:19:11 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 03, 2024, 08:55:14 PMFor I-190, my temporary solution was to view the bridge by parking along NY 104 and walking up the hill to view the roadway and the bridge.  Hopefully, I will rectify the situation eventually.

Yeah, for years I didn't get that little itty-bitty part between Exit 25B and Canada.  And hey, with Canadians being valued at 70-75% of Americans, traveling through Canada is pretty sweet with that discount, anyway.  Toronto's worth a visit or two.

Yeah, probably when I finally decide to clinch I-94 in Michigan.

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2024, 08:42:41 PMMexico does have the advantage that not many interstates actually end at the border. Just I-5, in fact, though I-110 may as well, since it ends at US customs.

I clinched the south end of I-5 in the early 1970s, in a school bus, on a field trip for my high school Spanish class to visit the English class at a Tijuana high school. Border controls were pretty meaningless back then. That kind of trip would be totally unthinkable nowadays.

Many decades later, I drove into Mexico and back from the south end of I-110 in El Paso (normal border hassles in both directions). I'm not sure that was necessary to clinch I-110. That trip took me to the monuments to the Chamizal border dispute, on both sides of the border (a messy dispute, resolved mainly by putting that part of the Rio Grande in a concrete trench, to make sure the river would never shift course again).

Re: Mexico, I-5 doesn't technically end at the border. Ends at the "return to US" U-turn just before export control, and it is supported by the Caltrans definition of the route. Of the CA border crossings, this and 7 are the two that are very clear in "no crossing required" because the route ends north of the last U-turn. The others are iffier, but definitely easy sight clinches.

International borders and military installations are the two places I am willing to accept questionable sight clinches, because the stakes are much higher than elsewhere. Basically, "if you can see the border, I'll accept it". This means that I-89 and I-81 are good as far as I'm concerned, US 11 is not. But I have asterisks for a couple of crossings I have not personally used.

But back to the topic at hand: there is exactly nothing in Nevada that even warrants a sight clinch because there are zero international borders and zero routes that end at/inside a military gate. NV 720 comes the closest.

Meh.  Qualitative definitions of routes are always a little vague.

Note the on-ramp that extends just past the off-ramp for the U-turn on I-5 SB.

Makes me wonder where their maintenance jurisdiction ends...hm...then again, nothing stops the border agencies from maintaining Interstate mileage.  Hmmm...

Looking at the Caltrans Postmile Tool the following routes currently end at the Mexican border:

- CA 905
- CA 188
- CA 111
- CA 186

However...

-  The CTC authorized the relinquishment of CA 186 away from the border station in 2019.

On a trip back in 1991, I made the connection from I-29 south to I-80 east in Iowa via the eastern segment of I-680. That's the only segment of I-680 I've ever been on. When that portion of 680 was redesignated as 880, I scored a clinch of I-880.

On that same trip, I was on US 666 from Shiprock to Gallup. Earlier this year, I was on US 491 from Shiprock to Monticello. Therefore, I consider US 491/US 666 to be clinched.

I have been on all of I-81 from Tennessee to the last exit in New York before crossing the border into Canada. Since I don't have a passport, I could not legally enter Canada. I got off at the last exit, drove as far north as I could, and got back on I-81 going south. I consider I-81 to be clinched.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2024, 04:03:35 PMOn a trip back in 1991, I made the connection from I-29 south to I-80 east in Iowa via the eastern segment of I-680. That's the only segment of I-680 I've ever been on. When that portion of 680 was redesignated as 880, I scored a clinch of I-880.

On that same trip, I was on US 666 from Shiprock to Gallup. Earlier this year, I was on US 491 from Shiprock to Monticello. Therefore, I consider US 491/US 666 to be clinched.

I have been on all of I-81 from Tennessee to the last exit in New York before crossing the border into Canada. Since I don't have a passport, I could not legally enter Canada. I got off at the last exit, drove as far north as I could, and got back on I-81 going south. I consider I-81 to be clinched.

Cheapskate.

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 04:29:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2024, 04:03:35 PMOn a trip back in 1991, I made the connection from I-29 south to I-80 east in Iowa via the eastern segment of I-680. That's the only segment of I-680 I've ever been on. When that portion of 680 was redesignated as 880, I scored a clinch of I-880.

On that same trip, I was on US 666 from Shiprock to Gallup. Earlier this year, I was on US 491 from Shiprock to Monticello. Therefore, I consider US 491/US 666 to be clinched.

I have been on all of I-81 from Tennessee to the last exit in New York before crossing the border into Canada. Since I don't have a passport, I could not legally enter Canada. I got off at the last exit, drove as far north as I could, and got back on I-81 going south. I consider I-81 to be clinched.

Cheapskate.

I'm with you H.B..

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 04, 2024, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 04:29:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2024, 04:03:35 PMOn a trip back in 1991, I made the connection from I-29 south to I-80 east in Iowa via the eastern segment of I-680. That's the only segment of I-680 I've ever been on. When that portion of 680 was redesignated as 880, I scored a clinch of I-880.

On that same trip, I was on US 666 from Shiprock to Gallup. Earlier this year, I was on US 491 from Shiprock to Monticello. Therefore, I consider US 491/US 666 to be clinched.

I have been on all of I-81 from Tennessee to the last exit in New York before crossing the border into Canada. Since I don't have a passport, I could not legally enter Canada. I got off at the last exit, drove as far north as I could, and got back on I-81 going south. I consider I-81 to be clinched.

Cheapskate.

I'm with you H.B..

Two road clinchers rather than route clinchers.

I've driven US 95 I-11 hundreds of times through Las Vegas since the 1980s. There's no way I'm going to say "I don't have it clinched" just because they changed the route shield since I moved away.

Same for US 95 northwest of town, if that ever gets upgraded, or US 93 in Arizona. Adding a bridge to a road does not change the road, or the clinch.

Quote from: DenverBrian on June 03, 2024, 09:29:54 PMTough crowd. :-D

To try to drag this back on topic: We have a somewhat rare situation with I-11. No new pavement, just new signing, along with a decommissioning of a previously signed spur route.

At some point (who knows when), as the route northwest of town has its at-grade intersections removed, we'll once again have a "new" section of I-11.

At this point, I'm very glad I'm not into clinching. :-D

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 05:41:21 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 04, 2024, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 04:29:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2024, 04:03:35 PMOn a trip back in 1991, I made the connection from I-29 south to I-80 east in Iowa via the eastern segment of I-680. That's the only segment of I-680 I've ever been on. When that portion of 680 was redesignated as 880, I scored a clinch of I-880.

On that same trip, I was on US 666 from Shiprock to Gallup. Earlier this year, I was on US 491 from Shiprock to Monticello. Therefore, I consider US 491/US 666 to be clinched.

I have been on all of I-81 from Tennessee to the last exit in New York before crossing the border into Canada. Since I don't have a passport, I could not legally enter Canada. I got off at the last exit, drove as far north as I could, and got back on I-81 going south. I consider I-81 to be clinched.

Cheapskate.

I'm with you H.B..

Two road clinchers rather than route clinchers.

Mine is a "was I there" thing. I clinch roads not for numbers but for the experiences of seeing the things that that road allows me to see. Other than a sign, not much will have changed from the last time I was on I-515 (in the I-11 example).

Fascinating. We apparently have road clinchers vs. route clinchers.

The religious fervor on both sides is rollicking. :-D

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 04, 2024, 07:12:17 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 05:41:21 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 04, 2024, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 04:29:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2024, 04:03:35 PMOn a trip back in 1991, I made the connection from I-29 south to I-80 east in Iowa via the eastern segment of I-680. That's the only segment of I-680 I've ever been on. When that portion of 680 was redesignated as 880, I scored a clinch of I-880.

On that same trip, I was on US 666 from Shiprock to Gallup. Earlier this year, I was on US 491 from Shiprock to Monticello. Therefore, I consider US 491/US 666 to be clinched.

I have been on all of I-81 from Tennessee to the last exit in New York before crossing the border into Canada. Since I don't have a passport, I could not legally enter Canada. I got off at the last exit, drove as far north as I could, and got back on I-81 going south. I consider I-81 to be clinched.

Cheapskate.

I'm with you H.B..

Two road clinchers rather than route clinchers.

Mine is a "was I there" thing. I clinch roads not for numbers but for the experiences of seeing the things that that road allows me to see. Other than a sign, not much will have changed from the last time I was on I-515 (in the I-11 example).

Exactly.  You clinch the road, not the route.

I did a bit of cheating with my dad and brothers in 2009 when we left and re-entered I-70 at exit 201 in Breckenridge without crossing over the intersecting route on 70, but we counted it as a clinch of the complete highway nonetheless. We also debated whether it would count without driving it from 695 to the park-and-ride in Baltimore, but did that just to be safe.

Quote from: DenverBrian on June 04, 2024, 07:21:50 PMFascinating. We apparently have road clinchers vs. route clinchers.

The religious fervor on both sides is rollicking. :-D

And you got people in the crowd who really don't keep tabs on this kind of thing.  Sticking to prioritizing interesting sections of road be there a Sign Route or not has rarely led me astray. 

Aside from Arizona I wasn't really keeping a running tally on Sign Route clinches until I encountered this forum.

If I clinched a route with a previous number that is now either changed or added concurrency, I consider it done once and for all hence US 83 in Rio Grande Valley. Done it in 1997 way before I-2 was even a thought. So I-2 is clinched minus that new bypass at the current west end.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 04, 2024, 08:09:04 PMIf I clinched a route with a previous number that is now either changed or added concurrency, I consider it done once and for all hence US 83 in Rio Grande Valley. Done it in 1997 way before I-2 was even a thought. So I-2 is clinched minus that new bypass at the current west end.

Definition of road clinching.

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 08:49:59 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 04, 2024, 08:09:04 PMIf I clinched a route with a previous number that is now either changed or added concurrency, I consider it done once and for all hence US 83 in Rio Grande Valley. Done it in 1997 way before I-2 was even a thought. So I-2 is clinched minus that new bypass at the current west end.

I think so, but some on here may not. This is AA Roads remember. 

Definition of road clinching.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 04, 2024, 08:09:04 PMIf I clinched a route with a previous number that is now either changed or added concurrency, I consider it done once and for all hence US 83 in Rio Grande Valley. Done it in 1997 way before I-2 was even a thought. So I-2 is clinched minus that new bypass at the current west end.

If you track your travels in Travelmapping, this happens automatically.

The issue of a road being superseded by another road is one for which I don't necessarily think there's always an easy answer because sometimes the superseding road bears pretty much no resemblance at all to what it replaced. An example that readily comes to mind for me is a 5.4-mile segment of VA-286, the Fairfax County Parkway, between VA-123 and Pohick Road (Google Maps link here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EdiSzPuqxXUdDtFa8)). That segment used to be Pohick Road, a rural-feeling two-lane road, and it ended at the traffic light seen on that map link at the point where Robert Carter Road sits opposite the ramps to and from the Parkway. (You can see from the map that Pohick Road was truncated when the Parkway was built.) My primary memories of that road prior to the Fairfax County Parkway come from the behind-the-wheel driver's ed class I took in 10th grade because we used it fairly frequently. If I had not driven on it since then (not the case, I use the Parkway fairly frequently), I would not consider myself to have travelled on that segment of the Parkway because it is utterly different from old Pohick Road in just about every way. It's a major dual-carriageway suburban arterial with a 50-mph speed limit. I don't remember what the speed limit was on old Pohick Road, but it didn't feel remotely like driving on a suburban arterial. The parts of the Parkway east and west of that segment didn't exist at all back then and were new construction beginning in the 1980s.

Another example that comes to mind for me is "Interstate 14" between I-35 and Copperas Cove in Texas. I was born at Fort Hood. I have no idea what the road looked like back then, but given that my parents said Copperas Cove had a fair number of unpaved roads, I'd guess the road didn't remotely resemble an Interstate Highway, so I don't consider myself to have ever been on I-14 even though my Travel Mapping shows portions of it.

On the other hand, there are roads that get substantially reconstructed that I wouldn't have any problem counting even if I hadn't been on the new version. I-66 between the Beltway and Haymarket, Virginia, is one example of that. It used to be two lanes on each side; now it's generally five lanes per side (three general-purpose and two HO/T). Parts of it are unrecognizable from the 1970s, other parts of it don't look too different aside from the wider road. That's one I'd count.

For people who like bright-line rules, that sort of answer would be utterly unsatisfying. But it works for me, and I think sometimes bright-line rules just don't work—or, put differently, almost every rule has an exception somewhere.

My clinching "rules":
I must be personally driving.  I don't count being a passenger.
Either direction, doesn't matter.
Night or day is irrelevant.
Exiting at an interchange and getting back on same interchange counts as clinched.  No need to drive every bit of mainline between ramp gores.  The same can be said for a pit stop where you go in one driveway for a business and out another driveway.
Relocation of a route I've clinched moves it back into unclinched for me.  So if a bypass is constructed or some other new terrain alignment is built, I would have to go back to get that clinch.
In the event of a new route being signed over a previously clinched route, I do not consider that clinched. Because I didn't drive it when it was I-whatever.

So I clinched US 41 in my state a long time ago.  But I-41 came about after I had moved from Milwaukee and as a result, I've not yet traveled between about Germantown and Fond du Lac since the rebranding.  So I do not consider I-41 clinched until I redrive that remaining section.

The 680 to 880 conversion was mentioned recently in the thread.  I made it a point to drive that route again after the change.  (And also to see how they fixed up the remaining 680 after that big flood.)

Since we're playing, my clinching rules:

1. I must have traveled the route after age 15
2a. Mode of travel doesn't matter. Driving, walking, bicycling, center median transit line, all counts.
2b. Adjacent, parallel routes don't count. For example, I didn't clinch any of US 2 in Montana when I rode the Empire Builder alongside it.
2c. Direction, time of day, doesn't matter.
3a. What matters is where the asphalt / concrete is, not what's on it. Adding a bridge, changing a route number, duplexing it, that doesn't change that I traveled on that stretch.
3b. But construction of a new alignment, whether that's a bypass or rebuilding a road parallel to its current location (but, say, below grade) does not count.
4. Exiting and re-entering does not count against clinching. Gotta get gas some time

Interesting concepts regarding age and who is driving.  There is certainly a lot of roads back east I would never bother to repeat where my dad was the one driving prior to me getting a license.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2024, 11:23:29 AMInteresting concepts regarding age and who is driving.  There is certainly a lot of roads back east I would never bother to repeat where my dad was the one driving prior to me getting a license.

Indeed there are some from family vacations that I fully expect I will never see again; the trip that most readily comes to mind was an August 1986 trip that included far northern Ontario (Cochrane, Moosonee, Moose Factory, and Timmins). It's not an area I really feel any need to visit again, unless perhaps I wanted to make the long slog across the northern branch of the Trans-Canada Highway. So I absolutely count those roads. I was interested in knowing where we were going and what roads we were taking.

Because of things like that, I count family travel going way back because I don't see a good discernable place to draw the line.

My rules:
1) I've been on the road along whatever length I'm claiming clinched, whether driving, riding, walking, 42 years old, 5 years old, etc.

I have a near photographic memory for certain things, so I 100% remember which roads we took on trips as a kid. My first trip out of the Upper Midwest, I very clearly remember that we went from Hastings, MN to Rio Rico, AZ via I-35, I-40, I-25, I-10, and I-19. We stayed the first night in Lenexa, KS, the second night in Shamrock, TX, and the third night in Deming, NM. I also remember we stopped at the El Reno trading post and I got one of those plastic bow and arrow sets with suction cup arrows and I played with it at the hotel in Shamrock. On the way back, we took mostly the same route, but my dad didn't listen to 6-year-old me and stayed on the Kansas Turnpike as opposed to turning off to stay on I-35 at exit 127 in Emporia. So we also clinched I-335 on that trip.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 05, 2024, 07:24:25 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 04, 2024, 08:09:04 PMIf I clinched a route with a previous number that is now either changed or added concurrency, I consider it done once and for all hence US 83 in Rio Grande Valley. Done it in 1997 way before I-2 was even a thought. So I-2 is clinched minus that new bypass at the current west end.

If you track your travels in Travelmapping, this happens automatically.

I appreciate the automatic concurrency feature when mapping out existing routes.  But, it's annoying for new routes (e.g., I-41), since I haven't been on those routes yet.

Personally, It's about the perspective and experience from the drive. If the view is quite different than before, or the experience is different, it's sort of a "different route". Since the view and experience are part of the enjoyment, the concept of the sight clinch comes into play; most of the tactile experience comes from the vehicle, or maybe a stop by the roadside. The road itself is rarely physically experienced, most of it is visually acquired from most routes.

I'll count it I was a passenger, but still prefer to re-clinch as a driver. Night-time driving doesn't disqualify a clinch; if anything, it gives me a reason to re-drive in daylight. Besides, it's not "half-clinched" on a cloudy day or sunset.

If the number changes, you don't lose the clinch. I just may want a photo of it, though. It sure helps for record keeping and sharing.

I want to usually drive a modified route (more lanes, slight alignment change) but don't lose sleep or my clinch if the end points are the same, especially if that route is quite distant.

A major alignment change is different; if you can't see where the old route was, it's kind of a different route. But that depends on how much of an overall change that is. A half-mile overall difference is probably not going to break my clinch if the end points are effectively the same.

Who would have thought roads had so much gray area?

I'm relatively lax about how I count clinches. I'm fine with counting trips as a passenger, and I count childhood travel as long as I remember what route we took. Taking exits and ducking through parking lots is fine, but if I miss a section of a route because of a closure I'll want to go back and clinch it once it reopens. I don't count frontage roads, but we don't have too many Texas-style frontage roads around here anyway.

Clinches still count if the designation changes; I didn't feel the need to re-drive parts of US 41 after it became I-41, for example. I want to re-clinch roads after major alignment changes (e.g. city bypasses), but I take smaller ones on a case-by-case basis. The same is true for freeway upgrades; I don't feel the need to re-clinch a route if the state replaced a few stoplights with exits, but if it feels like a different highway I'll re-drive it. (For example, I re-clinched US 12 through Baraboo after the freeway upgrade a few years ago, which replaced a three-lane road with a freeway on a slightly different alignment.)

Ducking through parking lots?

Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2024, 06:58:13 AMDucking through parking lots?

If it means you stopped off along the road at some entry point of the parking lot but returned to the same route from a different part of the lot, it doesn't break a clinch.

Heh, some state routes (thinking mainly of Utah) are parking lots.

Quote from: formulanone on June 07, 2024, 09:04:17 AM

Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2024, 06:58:13 AMDucking through parking lots?

If it means you stopped off along the road  at some entry point of the parking lot but returned to the same route but from a different part of the lot, it doesn't break a clinch.

Heh, when I read that phrase I thought of the people who bomb through gas stations or other properties located near intersections in order to avoid waiting at a red light.

ROUTES:

1. It doesn't matter where I am in the car, even if it's in the trunk or not even in a car, if I travel the entirety of that route, it's a clinch for me. Nor does the time of day matter.

2. Taking an exit/rest stop and getting back on at that same exit does not ruin a clinch for me. If it were two or more exits however, no clinch.

3. Realignments kill a clinch ONLY if it's over 0.5 miles long. For example, adding another roundabout on VA-231 doesn't kill a clinch, but if there was a bypass built around Gordonsville carrying the number, then it will be unclinched. If the old route becomes a special route however, I will have auto-clinched that special route.

COUNTIES:

1. If I enter a county, even for 3 seconds, I have clinched it. Just like routes, it doesn't matter how or which part of a car I would be in. I clinched Sussex County, DE on foot.

2. The term "clinching a county" doesn't mean I have traveled every mile of every road, it just means that I entered the county at least once.

3. Traveling every mile of every road in a county means I've fully clinched that county. For Virginia, secondary routes don't count towards this. The only county I've fully clinched is Greene County, VA.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2024, 09:05:39 AMHeh, some state routes (thinking mainly of Utah) are parking lots.

See also VA...

Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2024, 11:18:00 AM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2024, 09:05:39 AMHeh, some state routes (thinking mainly of Utah) are parking lots.

See also VA...

VA 379 is most definitely just a parking lot. (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va379.htm)

Quote from: Hunty2022 on June 07, 2024, 10:40:42 AMCOUNTIES:

1. If I enter a county, even for 3 seconds, I have clinched it. Just like routes, it doesn't matter how or which part of a car I would be in. I clinched Sussex County, DE on foot.

2. The term "clinching a county" doesn't mean I have traveled every mile of every road, it just means that I entered the county at least once.

3. Traveling every mile of every road in a county means I've fully clinched that county. For Virginia, secondary routes don't count towards this. The only county I've fully clinched is Greene County, VA.

I subdivide my "round 2" (post-July 2010) U.S. counties differently.

-- Just crossing the county line is a "minor contact". I don't count that as a real clinch, and there aren't any of those left on my "round 2" map.

-- More substantial contacts are "major contacts". That's subjectively defined, but usually means driving several miles within the county, in one side and out the other.

-- Highest-quality clinch is a visit to at least one of the county seats (some counties have more than one, especially in Arkansas). That doesn't always require a visit to or drive past the county courthouse or other central county government office, just means at least crossing the city limits, unless the seat is an unincorporated community.

There are only two U.S. counties where I've set foot in the county courthouse/equivalent. One is where I now live, which I visited for among other things jury duty, and to cast an in-person absentee ballot.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 07, 2024, 09:38:21 AMHeh, when I read that phrase I thought of the people who bomb through gas stations or other properties located near intersections in order to avoid waiting at a red light.

I knew someone who referred to that maneuver as being an "Esso Asso".

Quote from: dlsterner on June 07, 2024, 03:17:37 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 07, 2024, 09:38:21 AMHeh, when I read that phrase I thought of the people who bomb through gas stations or other properties located near intersections in order to avoid waiting at a red light.

I knew someone who referred to that maneuver as being an "Esso Asso".

I have heard that expression as well. Something makes me think I've used it in this forum at some point.

In Virginia, at least, it's illegal to drive across private property to evade a traffic control device. Don't know about elsewhere.

I never count sight clinches, ever, on any class of highway.

For me, a clinch involves driving all the way from one end of the route to another, though it doesn't have to be in all one direction, or even over one trip. For longer routes, however, if I get on in both directions at the same grade-separated interchange (such at Exit 69 on I-65 in Alabama), or get off and then back-on at the same grade-separated interchange for longer routes, then I will count it. However, for shorter routes (like AL 152 in Montgomery), then I need to drive through that interchange without getting off as well.

Getting off and back-on at the same intersection, or going both directions from the same intersection, will count towards the clinch no matter the length of route.

For highways that don't have a clearly-marked end (such as US 72 in Memphis, TN), then I'll find the furthest reasonable point where it could end at and go from there. For US 72 in Memphis, I started finishing my clinch of it from this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B008'34.4%22N+90%C2%B003'08.4%22W/@35.1428821,-90.0529747,229m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d35.142881!4d-90.052331?entry=ttu).

Quote from: formulanone on June 07, 2024, 09:04:17 AM

Quote from: Rothman on June 07, 2024, 06:58:13 AMDucking through parking lots?

If it means you stopped off along the road at some entry point of the parking lot but returned to the same route from a different part of the lot, it doesn't break a clinch.

Exactly. There are some big parking lots out there, and I know some people are picky about driving every inch of pavement, though I'm not one of them.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2024, 09:05:39 AMHeh, some state routes (thinking mainly of Utah) are parking lots.

Southern Utah has some of the emptiest parking lots anywhere.

For me, there's a little difference between my idea of a clinch and my idea of when I would want to drive a road again. I didn't feel that the repair of the mega-slide at Mud Creek on CA-1, or the 100-yard realignment away from the beach a little further south, unclinched the road, but I drove the road again anyway, just to see what it looked like.

Also, if a bypass is built on a road I had once driven, for my own purposes I think of it as an "asterisk", meaning I hope to get back there at some point. (It took about six years for me to do the US-101 bypass around Willits CA, and 14 to do the CA-25 bypass around Hollister.) But for TravelMapping, I would mark realignments like that as untraveled.

Here's are some questions. Does anyone feel the need to clinch express lanes separately? Or truck lanes through large interchanges? Is an interchange ever large enough that you would feel like you hadn't clinched it unless you had driven a certain spectacular flyover, or a longish tunnel? I don't consider those to be clinching issues, but I do try to drive them if they're in an area I visit multiple times.

^ There are some interchanges where I feel like one has to drive the mainline through to clinch, because of their size.  I-84/I-691 is one (these one also has an entire interchange inside!), A-440/A-25 is another (that one for both A-440 and A-25, despite A-440 ending there).  As for clinching flyovers, I've felt the need to do that for the QEW/ON 420 and DE 1/I-95; even though the flyovers aren't officially mainline at those, it feels like they have a better claim to being the mainline than the actual mainline.

Quote from: pderocco on June 08, 2024, 06:22:27 PM

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2024, 09:05:39 AMHeh, some state routes (thinking mainly of Utah) are parking lots.

Southern Utah has some of the emptiest parking lots anywhere.

For me, there's a little difference between my idea of a clinch and my idea of when I would want to drive a road again. I didn't feel that the repair of the mega-slide at Mud Creek on CA-1, or the 100-yard realignment away from the beach a little further south, unclinched the road, but I drove the road again anyway, just to see what it looked like.

Also, if a bypass is built on a road I had once driven, for my own purposes I think of it as an "asterisk", meaning I hope to get back there at some point. (It took about six years for me to do the US-101 bypass around Willits CA, and 14 to do the CA-25 bypass around Hollister.) But for TravelMapping, I would mark realignments like that as untraveled.

Here's are some questions. Does anyone feel the need to clinch express lanes separately? Or truck lanes through large interchanges? Is an interchange ever large enough that you would feel like you hadn't clinched it unless you had driven a certain spectacular flyover, or a longish tunnel? I don't consider those to be clinching issues, but I do try to drive them if they're in an area I visit multiple times.

Heh.  That's a fun topic to approach on the TM forum.  You get people who don't want to have to clinch them barking about whether they're on the same "alignments" of the parent Interstate and such.

Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2021, 11:08:29 AMI do little turnarounds over borders when it comes to county clinching -- if I am not in that new county, then where am I?  For interstates, I only need to count one direction, but if I get off, I do need to backtrack to get the over or underpass.

That said, for special cases like I-95 in NJ or I-670 in Columbus or I-480...I do clinch the legs or spurs.

That's how I am for county clinching too. A classic one for me was my clinch of Parke County, Indiana. I simply drove over the bridge on US-36 into Montezuma and turned around at the gas station within the first block after crossing the bridge.

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 09, 2024, 11:25:31 AM

Quote from: Rothman on February 18, 2021, 11:08:29 AMI do little turnarounds over borders when it comes to county clinching -- if I am not in that new county, then where am I?  For interstates, I only need to count one direction, but if I get off, I do need to backtrack to get the over or underpass.

That said, for special cases like I-95 in NJ or I-670 in Columbus or I-480...I do clinch the legs or spurs.

That's how I am for county clinching too. A classic one for me was my clinch of Parke County, Indiana. I simply drove over the bridge on US-36 into Montezuma and turned around at the gas station within the first block after crossing the bridge.

This is how I'm clinching Sussex, NJ.

In California, we have an alternative definition of clinching counties, which is to clinch County Sign Routes. This is a 1958 vintage program in which a certain few of the thousands of county roads are designated as being up to certain standards, and worthy of the blue and yellow pentagonal signs. Since the maximum number of such routes in a county happens to be 25 (and is usually far fewer), it's practical to drive all of them. And since I've driven all the state highways in most counties, I have to resort to county sign routes to feed my habit. So far I've clinched 17 of the 40 participating counties, and intend to polish off five more in a month or so. Unfortunately, the rest are mostly straight two-lane roads in the flat boring Central Valley, or a network of roads in Silicon Valley with hundreds of traffic lights.

Amusingly a draw for a lot flat lands letter county routes is finding out they are actually still signed.  Two examples I never would have driven otherwise are J19 and J40.

Worth noting, the letter county routes tend to feature some seriously awesome winding roads and unique structures.  I regularly take G16 as a bypass of the Salinas area when I'm heading to the Monterey Peninsula.  G16 has a large single truss bridge and is one of the few roads to cross the Santa Lucia Mountains.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 04, 2024, 07:12:17 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 05:41:21 PM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 04, 2024, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: Rothman on June 04, 2024, 04:29:12 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2024, 04:03:35 PMOn a trip back in 1991, I made the connection from I-29 south to I-80 east in Iowa via the eastern segment of I-680. That's the only segment of I-680 I've ever been on. When that portion of 680 was redesignated as 880, I scored a clinch of I-880.
On that same trip, I was on US 666 from Shiprock to Gallup. Earlier this year, I was on US 491 from Shiprock to Monticello. Therefore, I consider US 491/US 666 to be clinched.

I have been on all of I-81 from Tennessee to the last exit in New York before crossing the border into Canada. Since I don't have a passport, I could not legally enter Canada. I got off at the last exit, drove as far north as I could, and got back on I-81 going south. I consider I-81 to be clinched.

Cheapskate.

I'm with you H.B..

Two road clinchers rather than route clinchers.

Mine is a "was I there" thing. I clinch roads not for numbers but for the experiences of seeing the things that that road allows me to see. Other than a sign, not much will have changed from the last time I was on I-515 (in the I-11 example).

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/12aW6JtfvUdcdO/200w.gif)

I-11, formerly I-515, probably is changing most at night. They're installing miles of new tall light poles in the center, all LED lighting.