In particular, can a route become "unclinched?"
For example, if a route gets moved or extended onto a new routing, such as a bypass, do you view that you have to now take that bypass to "reclinch?" What about if it is moved or extended over highways that you have driven on previously?
A real life example. When WI-13 was given a new route through Marshfield, it was also re-routed between Wisconsin Rapids and Marshfield. Instead of taking the current WI-73 and WI-80, it was routed over WI-34 and US-10.
I had previously clinched all of WI-13, as well as US-10 and WI-34. Since the stretch through Marshfield was a completely new route, would you consider my clinching reversed until I took that routing? How about the stretch that was previously clinched as existing state highways?
The semantics of clinching signed routes is why I generally tend to stick to trying to drive what I think will be fun or just the most interesting. But yeah, if you had a highway clinched and it suddenly has a huge alignment shift then it would seem it would be something you'd need to go clinch again. Wether that is worth the effort or not really depends on the individual. Example: I have a clinch of CA 132 but the highway is about to be realigned west of CA 99 in Modesto. I don't intend to rush out any time soon to do the new alignment unless l can chain some new stuff I want to see together with it.
Here's how I count it:
If I get off a route briefly, such as at an interchange to get food/fuel, or to go around a bridge out, I count it as clinched if I can see where I got off the route from where I got back on and vice versa.
If a route gets re-routed onto a brand new roadway that didn't exist before (US 33 in Goshen for example) I would consider it unclinched until I get that new segment.
If a route gets re-routed or created onto a numbered route I clinched previously (I-41 for example), I consider that clinched. This is mainly driven by travelmapping, where clinching the route under its old number automatically counts it for the new route that gets added.
If a route gets upgraded to freeway but follows the same path (I-69/IN 37 in Morgan county for example), I consider that clinched for the same reason as above.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 05, 2022, 11:26:47 AM
Here's how I count it:
If I get off a route briefly, such as at an interchange to get food/fuel, or to go around a bridge out, I count it as clinched if I can see where I got off the route from where I got back on and vice versa.
If a route gets re-routed onto a brand new roadway that didn't exist before (US 33 in Goshen for example) I would consider it unclinched until I get that new segment.
If a route gets re-routed or created onto a numbered route I clinched previously (I-41 for example), I consider that clinched. This is mainly driven by travelmapping, where clinching the route under its old number automatically counts it for the new route that gets added.
If a route gets upgraded to freeway but follows the same path (I-69/IN 37 in Morgan county for example), I consider that clinched for the same reason as above.
This is exactly how I view this as well.
And Max I agree with you too. I don't go out of my way to clinch. I just like to see things that I haven't seen before. Like last year when I took WI-32 north out of Green Bay. I decided to take it because I hadn't been on most of it and it was eventually going to get me where I needed to go. It wasn't until after that I realized I had clinched it. Which I don't really keep track of anyway.
It would seem strange to me, if someone drove US-6 from end to end on an epic cross-country road trip, but then a realignment happened two years later, that he should no longer be able to say he clinched US-6.
To me, if you drove a highway in its entirety, then you've clinched it.
Then again, I don't really keep track of these things.
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2022, 02:18:22 PM
It would seem strange to me, if someone drove US-6 from end to end on an epic cross-country road trip, but then a realignment happened two years later, that he should no longer be able to say he clinched US-6.
To me, if you drove a highway in its entirety, then you've clinched it.
Then again, I don't really keep track of these things.
What if, instead of an existing segment getting realigned, the route got extended?
I had to deal with this when the Interstate crossings in Saint Louis got all swapped. I reclinched them.
The OP asked about a route later being rerouted. Let me ask the opposite question: Do you consider a route clinched even if you haven't driven every previous routing? I think most of us would say "yes." Why would your answer be different for a later routing?
Either you count a route clinched if you're on its current routing at the time you drive it, or you don't.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 06, 2022, 02:19:45 PM
What if, instead of an existing segment getting realigned, the route got extended?
That would be the only circumstance where I would say the clinch is lost.
I clinch routes cycling, and I am of the mindset that if I've clinched what existed at the time, I've clinched it. If a portion gets re-aligned at some point, I get to it when I get to it.
Case in point, NH 111. Clinched it way back in 1996. In 2008-ish a new routing east of NH 28 opened, and a few years later a new routing opened west of I-93. I added them at some point, then inevitably last year rode it all from NH 1A to the Mass state border to get done in one nice chunk.
It's also, west of Kingston, one of the most boring and noisy things to ride a bicycle on.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 06, 2022, 02:57:22 PM
The OP asked about a route later being rerouted. Let me ask the opposite question: Do you consider a route clinched even if you haven't driven every previous routing? I think most of us would say "yes." Why would your answer be different for a later routing?
Either you count a route clinched if you're on its current routing at the time you drive it, or you don't.
Nope. If the alignment changes drastically, then the clinch is lost, like with the Saint Louis examples I provided above.
This is one of the reasons why I don't like it when Travel Mapping automatically counts some concurrencies. I haven't been on I-41, but Travel Mapping counts it even though I have only been on the concurrent routes before I-41 was designated.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 06, 2022, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 06, 2022, 02:18:22 PM
It would seem strange to me, if someone drove US-6 from end to end on an epic cross-country road trip, but then a realignment happened two years later, that he should no longer be able to say he clinched US-6.
To me, if you drove a highway in its entirety, then you've clinched it.
Then again, I don't really keep track of these things.
What if, instead of an existing segment getting realigned, the route got extended?
Sure. You just had an easier time of it than someone else trying right now. :awesomeface:
Another twist to my "unclinched routes" was when VDOT completed the eastbound lanes of US-460 between Rich Creek and Narrows. The old mountainous two-lane was converted into the westbound lanes. My first time back across this section was also westbound. It was several months before I returned to Blacksburg using the eastbound lanes, which got me the clinch again.
I think it's fun that everybody has their own rules about it (even if everyone insists their view is the correct one :D ). My clinching philosophy is a little more based on my personal feelings about whether I clinched the "spirit" of the route or not, especially if it's a targeted clinch and not a coincidental situation. I mean if I missed 50 miles, I didn't clinch it. But I decide based on case-by-case bases sometimes.
If the route changes alignment, I will say I clinched it as of (year I did), but I won't count it as a current clinch. Such is the case with A-85 and R-185 in Québec, where I clinched the 2018 mileage but both have since been modified.
As far as a route's change of alignment, for me ... it depends.
The replacement of the Gov. Nice bridge on US 301 over the Potomac River (due to be completed next year) is technically a change of alignment. Will I consider that part of US 301 un-clinched? No.
The new I-85 bridge over the Yadkin River in North Carolina is about 500 feet east of the site of the old bridge. Did I consider that part of I-85 un-clinched? Nah. (I did get the new bridge eventually)
US 301 was re-routed in Delaware recently to a path a few miles away from the old route. Did I consider that part of US 301 un-clinched? Yes, I did. Went back and re-clinched it.
Conclusion: I call it an un-clinch if it looks like an un-clinch :) Do I have a hard-and-fast threshold for separation distance? No. So it's kind of like a "sight clinch" for me. Especially if the only reason is a bridge replacement.
We all have our own rules, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 06, 2022, 08:28:35 PM
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
Yes.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 06, 2022, 08:28:35 PM
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
Yes, but this is highlighting a reason why it just isn't worth pursuing outright clinches for me unless it has a payoff somehow. Doubling back to a modern bypass when inconvenient isn't a viable payoff for me. Hell, derelict former routings bannered or not generally are more interesting to me subjectively over modern bypass routings. Others I know a great many feel differently about that scenario.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 06, 2022, 08:28:35 PM
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
I don't really care about bannered routes anymore. Many of them aren't even state-maintained anyway.
To steal someone else's wording, I clinch pavement rather than route numbers. I had all of 301 in Delaware before the toll road.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 06, 2022, 08:28:35 PM
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
If this were the only route a person had ever driven through Amarillo, would you say he had clinched I-40–even though there were 23 miles of I-40 he'd never even seen?
(https://i.imgur.com/umwJdJP.jpg)
I clinched I-70 this past December, but I needed the section from Salina, KS to Pittsburgh-ish to do it. As everyone knows that involves going through Indianapolis, which the highway is non-existent. It's a short distance and it wasn't my fault the road was torn up, plus I drove along it's skeleton taking the last possible exit and getting on on the next possible entrance ramp. Can I say I have clinched this part of I-70? I personally say I have and will continued to think so, but I just ant some opinions.
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 09:39:06 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 06, 2022, 08:28:35 PM
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
If this were the only route a person had ever driven through Amarillo, would you say he had clinched I-40–even though there were 23 miles of I-40 he'd never even seen?
(https://i.imgur.com/umwJdJP.jpg)
I wouldn't, and how I handle bypass or bannered routes in an area I'm not likely to come back to is I'd take the main route past town, then take the bannered route "backwards" through town, and then back onto the main route again.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 06, 2022, 08:28:35 PM
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2022, 09:25:06 PM
Yes, but this is highlighting a reason why it just isn't worth pursuing outright clinches for me unless it has a payoff somehow. Doubling back to a modern bypass when inconvenient isn't a viable payoff for me. Hell, derelict former routings bannered or not generally are more interesting to me subjectively over modern bypass routings. Others I know a great many feel differently about that scenario.
This all sounds like a fun idea, but I preferred to just "go someplace new" whenever I travelled. Then after 20 years, I looked back and figured out where I had clinched roads (and where I hadn't). That helped to find more new places. Now after another 20 years or so, I realize how many of those worn paths are now unclinched. There's a bunch of new highways here in North Carolina and the road will eventually call me. Even if I don't recognize the "phone number" anymore.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 07, 2022, 10:38:59 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 06, 2022, 08:28:35 PM
Well what if I decide that I want to go through the Business route through town? What if I take the truck route due to clearance issues or the like? Do I have to go back another time and take the main non-bannered route?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2022, 09:25:06 PM
Yes, but this is highlighting a reason why it just isn't worth pursuing outright clinches for me unless it has a payoff somehow. Doubling back to a modern bypass when inconvenient isn't a viable payoff for me. Hell, derelict former routings bannered or not generally are more interesting to me subjectively over modern bypass routings. Others I know a great many feel differently about that scenario.
This all sounds like a fun idea, but I preferred to just "go someplace new" whenever I travelled. Then after 20 years, I looked back and figured out where I had clinched roads (and where I hadn't). That helped to find more new places. Now after another 20 years or so, I realize how many of those worn paths are now unclinched. There's a bunch of new highways here in North Carolina and the road will eventually call me. Even if I don't recognize the "phone number" anymore.
In the case of some highways I've made an entire page based off their former alignments:
https://www.gribblenation.org/p/gribblenation-us-route-99-page.html?m=1
I've found that out old alignment blogs on average get double the readership compared to modern alignments. I think there is something to said for how an older or abandoned highway can carry intrigue from a modern lens.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 07, 2022, 10:12:32 AM
As everyone knows that involves going through Indianapolis, which the highway is non-existent.
I mean, I knew I-70 goes through Indianapolis, but I didn't know the highway was torn up there.
Quote from: kphoger on June 07, 2022, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 07, 2022, 10:12:32 AM
As everyone knows that involves going through Indianapolis, which the highway is non-existent.
I mean, I knew I-70 goes through Indianapolis, but I didn't know the highway was torn up there.
Well, I have seen many people here comment on it was all I was getting at. I wasn't trying to pass it off like I had new information was all I meant.
Completely closed downtown for construction. And noted on VMS's starting scores of miles outside of Indy, plus multiple times along I-465.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 06, 2022, 04:15:59 PM
Another twist to my "unclinched routes" was when VDOT completed the eastbound lanes of US-460 between Rich Creek and Narrows. The old mountainous two-lane was converted into the westbound lanes. My first time back across this section was also westbound. It was several months before I returned to Blacksburg using the eastbound lanes, which got me the clinch again.
I think most people consider a road clinched if they have driven either direction, not both. Roadways are frequently widened, often without widespread knowledge, and it would be impossible to go back to short segments just to clinch a few miles of roadway that became divided.
I consider an extension of a route to be an un-clinch, and for a reroute, I think it's dependent on how drastic said reroute is. The only route I can think of that's been extended since I clinched it is VA 164, which I consider un-clinched. (I also went back and re-clinched NC 615 when it was extended to NC 168, which just involved me driving down the loop road since I'd ridden the ferry in 2012.)
Say you clinched US 31E in 2000. Well since they rerouted the route in Davidson and Sumner counties would that now be considered an un-clinch?
US 31E back in 1990 was routed from downtown to Main St to Ellington Pkwy to Briley Pkwy to I-65 to SR 386 to the alignment in Gallatin at the time.
It now goes to Briley Pkwy but it goes to what was the older route back before the I-65 ride along Gallatin Pike. It goes back to it's older alignment.
There was an old "TENN" US 31E 30's looking shield along Gallatin Pike when the alignment was along I-65. When it was swapped back to Gallatin Pike they removed that old shield.
Reading this thread makes me grateful I only clinch Interstates.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 06:48:54 AM
Reading this thread makes me grateful I only clinch Interstates.
The prospect of driving to Florida next year already has me looking at how many viable options there are for avoiding I-10. From Los Angeles to San Antonio it is relatively simple and part of the chain of National Parks my wife wants to see. The fact that I've clinched I-10 in both directions is painful given it contained few miles of exploration and fun.
My two cents: do what feels right to you. I'm not going to advocate for policing the nuance of your clinches' continuities. If you want to clinch in a manner that's relatively fast and loose, go for it. As for me, I'm not flying out to California to re-clinch a highway that was realigned to a different roadway a mile over. Overall, I think I agree with Takumi above. Extensions are un-clinches; with slight reroutes, I don't see the need to invalidate a clinch.
Quote from: Takumi on June 07, 2022, 11:47:17 PM
I consider an extension of a route to be an un-clinch, and for a reroute, I think it's dependent on how drastic said reroute is. The only route I can think of that's been extended since I clinched it is VA 164, which I consider un-clinched. (I also went back and re-clinched NC 615 when it was extended to NC 168, which just involved me driving down the loop road since I'd ridden the ferry in 2012.)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 08, 2022, 09:29:54 AM
My two cents: do what feels right to you. I'm not going to advocate for policing the nuance of your clinches' continuities. If you want to clinch in a manner that's relatively fast and loose, go for it. As for me, I'm not flying out to California to re-clinch a highway that was realigned to a different roadway a mile over. Overall, I think I agree with Takumi above. Extensions are un-clinches; with slight reroutes, I don't see the need to invalidate a clinch.
Quote from: Takumi on June 07, 2022, 11:47:17 PM
I consider an extension of a route to be an un-clinch, and for a reroute, I think it's dependent on how drastic said reroute is. The only route I can think of that's been extended since I clinched it is VA 164, which I consider un-clinched. (I also went back and re-clinched NC 615 when it was extended to NC 168, which just involved me driving down the loop road since I'd ridden the ferry in 2012.)
That means I-20 is un-clinched for me since I have not driven on the new re-alignment around Ranger Hill in Texas. It's okay, I will have a chance in a few years to clinch it.
To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.
Isn't there a difference between a rerouting and a realignment?
Situation 1: A route is realigned to bypass a town. For example, when IL-13 was moved onto the new bypass in Harrisburg, I had already moved away from the area. Because part of the bypass hadn't been built yet when I moved away, I haven't driven all of the current IL-13 mileage through Harrisburg. I can therefore understand that sort of thing to cause an un-clinch.
Situation 2: A route designation shifts onto entirely new highway For example, MO-76 was recently rerouted and supplanted MO-465 in the process. If you hadn't ever driven on MO-465, then I understand why someone would consider the rerouting to cause an un-clinch of MO-76. But what if you had driven on MO-465? Would those miles now count toward MO-76?
Situation 3: A route is realigned to straighten it out. This one gets a little tricky. Let's say that it gets a new realignment to straighten out some curves. Does the route get un-clinched because there's "new pavement" you haven't driven on? If your answer is yes, then what if the road was rebuilt to flatten out some hills? It's still a sort of realignment, just on a different axis.
Situation 4: A major river bridge is demolished and rebuilt. To me, this is functionally the same as a realignment: the original "structure" of the road has been replaced with something new.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 08, 2022, 10:12:10 AM
To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.
If you must have driven every mile of the road, then you must do as I do and deem the "same interchange rule" invalid. You must drive on that little section of overpass or underpass to clinch every mile of the road...
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:52:49 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 08, 2022, 10:12:10 AM
To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.
If you must have driven every mile of the road, then you must do as I do and deem the "same interchange rule" invalid. You must drive on that little section of overpass or underpass to clinch every mile of the road...
I am sad to admit I have stopped for gas at interchange B heading west, got gas, then got on the eastbound side to exit interchange A to then go to the other side of the freeway to get back on heading west again to go under the bridge for interchange B just to fulfil this issue. I enjoy it, but I also know its a shameful practice and my children and children's children will also bear that shame for the rest of their lives.
I have actually done this so many times I lost track of how many times I have done it.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:52:49 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 08, 2022, 10:12:10 AM
To clinch a route in my view, you must have driven every mile of said road. I allow getting off to stop for gas or food as most people are going to do that as long as you get back on the highway at the same location you got off at. If a route has been realigned since the last time you were on it for example, when US 206 in New Jersey was rerouted on the Hillsborough Bypass, then US 206 would be unclinched until you cover that stretch.
If you must have driven every mile of the road, then you must do as I do and deem the "same interchange rule" invalid. You must drive on that little section of overpass or underpass to clinch every mile of the road...
I mean, there are examples where exiting for gas and then getting back on again leaves more than one mile of the highway un-driven-on.
Quote from: kphoger on June 08, 2022, 10:53:38 AM
Isn't there a difference between a rerouting and a realignment?
Situation 2: A route designation shifts onto entirely new highway For example, MO-76 was recently rerouted and supplanted MO-465 in the process. If you hadn't ever driven on MO-465, then I understand why someone would consider the rerouting to cause an un-clinch of MO-76. But what if you had driven on MO-465? Would those miles now count toward MO-76?
I'm sure that I'm old-fashioned and picky, but I didn't count them as clinched (such as some of the reroutings of US-52 in West Virginia). I feel that I need to lay eyes on the trailblazers for the route to count as clinched. The flip side of this is that I still count the old routes are clinched when they have been supplanted or decommissioned (like WV-43 or WV-82, respectively).
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 08, 2022, 04:02:01 PM
I'm sure that I'm old-fashioned ...
Yeah, that's the way my great-grandpappy used to count clinches...
I clinched I-880 in Iowa before it was ever numbered I-880. I was on that section (between I-29 and I-80) back in the 1990s when it still had its old number. When that route was renumbered, I gained a clinch that I didn't have to go back and revisit.
Likewise with the extension of I-69 along the Kentucky parkways. I haven't driven on that section of the Purchase Parkway between Mayfield and Calvert City since it was labeled I-69, but I don't have to. I will have I-69 in Kentucky clinched until the time that the new alignment and bridge are completed.
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
Imagine being around during the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of DOTs were renumbering their state highways. That would kind of suck to look at something like the 1964 California State Highway Renumbering and deciding to do a bunch of routes all over again.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
I think you're in the minority on that. For me, my clinches are map first, stats second. The map of where I've been doesn't change just because the route number did.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
Imagine being around during the 1960s and 1970s when a lot of DOTs were renumbering their state highways. That would kind of suck to look at something like the 1964 California State Highway Renumbering and deciding to do a bunch of routes all over again.
There's been a ton of numbering changes in West Virginia since I started driving, and I don't really care. Been there, done that, and probably will never get back to see much of my old haints even if I want to. But it is still fun to look at the maps and count all of the "Unclinched!" routes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
Quote from: vdeane on June 08, 2022, 08:13:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
I think you're in the minority on that. For me, my clinches are map first, stats second. The map of where I've been doesn't change just because the route number did.
Then you're clinching pavement and not routes. If that's your goal, though, it's all good.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
I look at it the opposite way. The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation. You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.
Also, whether a route technically alive or dead to me really is inconsequential. Decommissioned routes tend to be just as interesting to me if not more so than actively signed highways. An example of this would have been former CA 188 on Fallen Leaf Lake Road. It was very different than the actively signed routes around the Lake Tahoe region and therefore had something more interesting (to me) to offer.
I have about the sloppiest criteria for clinching as anyone you'll ever meet. It basically boils down to "If I was able to reasonably experience what was marked as Route X between points A and B at the time I was there, then I clinched Route X between points A and B". There's too much stuff I want to see in my life to dick around driving back to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or whatever because they realigned a mile of road and I need it to keep a clinch. That's so fiddly I wouldn't have any fun doing it (and in fact would start to actively resent having to do it), so I don't.
- Extensions to a clinched route–about the only time I'll scratch my clinch. That's new material I don't have, so I need to see it to count the route as clinched.
- Route closure with detour– If Route X was closed, the detour counts.
- Realignments–irrelevant. If it was the active Route X when I was on it, it counts.
- Renumberings–the clinch just transfers to the new number. Nothing changed about the road or the scenery, just the signs changed. Do you say that you don't know someone anymore when they get married and their last name changes?
- Sight clinching–If I can follow along the route and keep sight of it the whole time (like on a frontage road or a parallel street) I count it even if I'm not on the road itself. If I wouldn't be experiencing anything different if I was on the mainline, there's no point drawing a distinction. (Note that if there's a route that runs along the frontage road and I'm on a freeway mainline, like how MO-97 parallels I-44 for a bit, I don't count that since it's much easier to see what a freeway is like from a frontage road than the reverse.)
- Spite clinching–Every time Rothman tells someone they didn't clinch something, I pick a random route in a state I've never been to and count that as clinched.
I can get behind sight clinches. For example, I could see the eastern terminus of Interstate H-3 but at Marine Corps Base Hawaii but I didn't want to deal with the base traffic turnaround or having to whip out my CAC card. The being the case I took the Kaneohe Bay Drive exit. I could see the terminus, what more was there to experience on H3 other than inconvenience?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
I look at it the opposite way. The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation. You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
This post just clinched WY-789 for me! :D
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
This post just clinched WY-789 for me! :D
Fine. Clinching pavement's for weenies.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
I look at it the opposite way. The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation. You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread. If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor . Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing. Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."
Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log. I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job. Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 11:50:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
I look at it the opposite way. The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation. You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread. If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor . Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing. Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."
Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log. I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job. Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).
Well, you have fun then, but clinching routes is not fun for you and therefore you don't do it.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 06:58:17 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 11:50:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
I look at it the opposite way. The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation. You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread. If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor . Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing. Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."
Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log. I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job. Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).
Well, you have fun then, but clinching routes is not fun for you and therefore you don't do it.
But I do clinch them, it just isn't my mission statement. I just see no need to be so draconian about a hobby when it can sap the fun out of it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 11:50:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
I look at it the opposite way. The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation. You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread. If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor . Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing. Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."
Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log. I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job. Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).
I keep a route log because I like the sense of accomplishment, even if it's an entirely trivial one.
There were a lot of routes in Indiana that were not enjoyable to drive and I wouldn't have driven otherwise, but finishing off the entire state highway system was satisfying.
Plus, sometimes route clinching leads you to interesting places you'd never find otherwise. Yesterday I was clinching routes in Bureau and Putnam counties in Illinois and ended up in Tampico in neighboring Whitesides County. It's the birthplace of Ronald Reagan and had some interesting sites. I'd likely have never ended up there otherwise.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 09, 2022, 08:33:50 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 06:58:17 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 11:50:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 10:20:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
I look at it the opposite way. The pavement is what matters and not really the Route number designation. You physically drive the pavement, what route is/is not signed there really inconsequential.
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
I would refer to my even earlier thoughts in this thread. If we are getting down to the meat of the whole concept of driving recreationally for me it is largely for fun and not some sort draconian administrative endeavor . Sometimes route clinching is fun and sometimes it isn't, I rather target my travels to roads that are fun to drive or offer something worth seeing. Clinching a road simply because the route number has changed feels like a purely personal administrative task and not really something I think a lot of people would find "fun."
Then again, this is why I don't keep a Route log. I don't want to turn a hobby into something more akin to a job. Even now, some of the best stuff I've find on roadways isn't on signed routes (see Wards Ferry Road for my most recent example).
Well, you have fun then, but clinching routes is not fun for you and therefore you don't do it.
But I do clinch them, it just isn't my mission statement. I just see no need to be so draconian about a hobby when it can sap the fun out of it.
It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.
Take I-865. Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated? Sure. But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so. So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet. That's silly.
So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before. But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.
And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie. They haven't clinched that particular route. And lying is bad.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:56:10 AM
It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.
Take I-865. Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated? Sure. But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so. So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet. That's silly.
So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before. But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.
And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie. They haven't clinched that particular route. And lying is bad.
In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.
I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry
any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
You clinch numbers, not routes. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 10:37:12 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
You clinch numbers, not routes. Nothing wrong with that.
Routes are the numbers. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:56:10 AM
It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.
Take I-865. Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated? Sure. But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so. So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet. That's silly.
So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before. But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.
And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie. They haven't clinched that particular route. And lying is bad.
In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.
I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.
I resolve that issue by not allowing TM to be the gospel on what I have or haven't clinched. For me, I haven't been on I-41, although TM says I have. I just know I have to head back there to clinch I-41.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 10:37:12 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
You clinch numbers, not routes. Nothing wrong with that.
Routes are the numbers. Nothing wrong with that.
Routes are roads. Consult any dictionary. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:28:16 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:56:10 AM
It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.
Take I-865. Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated? Sure. But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so. So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet. That's silly.
So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before. But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.
And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie. They haven't clinched that particular route. And lying is bad.
In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.
I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.
I resolve that issue by not allowing TM to be the gospel on what I have or haven't clinched. For me, I haven't been on I-41, although TM says I have. I just know I have to head back there to clinch I-41.
I just don't have the time to look all over the country for new routes on roads I've already traveled to keep track separately from travelmapping. I-41 I know about because it's nearby. There are concurrencies on interstates out west where I was on the road 20+ years ago and don't remember whether the concurrency existed then or not, so it's easier to just use TM as the authority.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 10:37:12 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Right, so if you care about the pavement, you're clinching the pavement. Nothing wrong with that.
But, you haven't clinched the new route.
You clinch numbers, not routes. Nothing wrong with that.
Routes are the numbers. Nothing wrong with that.
Routes are roads. Consult any dictionary. Nothing wrong with that.
Nah. Routes are designations upon certain roads. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 11:35:11 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:28:16 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:56:10 AM
It's just a matter of properly describing what you're actually clinching.
Take I-865. Had I been on the spur prior to it being designated? Sure. But, I-865 didn't exist until after I had done so. So, I hadn't been on I-865, since you can't have been on a route that hadn't existed yet. That's silly.
So, sure, I'd been on that stretch of road before. But, I hadn't been on I-865 -- that was impossible to do before it existed.
And, if anyone says they've been on I-865 before it existed, that would be a lie. They haven't clinched that particular route. And lying is bad.
In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works. I drove all of what would eventually be I-41 before it existed, and logged by travels accordingly. Once I-41 was created, travelmapping automatically counted I-41 for me because a road segment that carries multiple designations only has one entry in the database, so claiming one route for that segment automatically credits you for every route on that segment. In this case, I have driven some of I-41 since it was created, and intend to drive the rest at some point, but I can't "uncount" segments of I-41 without also uncounting other routes that I did actually drive.
I don't currently have any examples of this, but If I had driven a road segment that didn't carry any route designation when I drove it, but then later received a designation, I wouldn't count it.
I resolve that issue by not allowing TM to be the gospel on what I have or haven't clinched. For me, I haven't been on I-41, although TM says I have. I just know I have to head back there to clinch I-41.
I just don't have the time to look all over the country for new routes on roads I've already traveled to keep track separately from travelmapping. I-41 I know about because it's nearby. There are concurrencies on interstates out west where I was on the road 20+ years ago and don't remember whether the concurrency existed then or not, so it's easier to just use TM as the authority.
Ah, the suffering of the route-clinching roadgeek. Having to cut corners because of the ever-changing systems...
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:35:24 AM
Routes are designations upon certain roads.
So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there? That seems like an un-useful definition.
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:35:24 AM
Routes are designations upon certain roads.
So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there? That seems like an un-useful definition.
I am not familiar with Chad's transportation system.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:31:29 AM
In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works.
I agree that TravelMapping is a big factor for anyone that uses it. If you've been on the road segment, you've been on it and that's all there is to it. If the number changes, I have no issues with saying you have to go back and re-clinch to get the new number, but it's still completely fine to keep it logged as a traveled segment.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:35:24 AM
Routes are designations upon certain roads.
So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there? That seems like an un-useful definition.
I am not familiar with Chad's transportation system.
As far as I know, its roads have no numbers.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:35:24 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 10:37:12 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 11:36:31 PM
Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2022, 12:31:37 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:31:29 AM
In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works.
I agree that TravelMapping is a big factor for anyone that uses it. If you've been on the road segment, you've been on it and that's all there is to it. If the number changes, I have no issues with saying you have to go back and re-clinch to get the new number, but it's still completely fine to keep it logged as a traveled segment.
Essentially you are hitting on many of the reasons I don't have a TravelMapping account. I have so much else in the hobby I try to manage between blogs and podcasts that I don't really have time to add anything else. Also TravelMapping from what my observation has been is far more about clinching numbered highways than necessarily roads I might be interested in.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 09, 2022, 08:33:50 AM
I just see no need to be so draconian about a hobby when it can sap the fun out of it.
Can I make this my forum signature?
Quote from: paulthemapguy on June 09, 2022, 06:43:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 09, 2022, 08:33:50 AM
I just see no need to be so draconian about a hobby when it can sap the fun out of it.
Can I make this my forum signature?
Sure.
I think I just spite-clinched the entirety of MSR-200 from page 3 there...
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:35:24 AM
Routes are designations upon certain roads.
So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there? That seems like an un-useful definition.
I am not familiar with Chad's transportation system.
As far as I know, its roads have no numbers.
Surely they have some sort of names.
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2022, 12:31:37 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 09, 2022, 09:31:29 AM
In theory, I agree with you, but I capitulated due to how travelmapping works.
I agree that TravelMapping is a big factor for anyone that uses it. If you've been on the road segment, you've been on it and that's all there is to it. If the number changes, I have no issues with saying you have to go back and re-clinch to get the new number, but it's still completely fine to keep it logged as a traveled segment.
Fencesitter.
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:39:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:35:24 AM
Routes are designations upon certain roads.
So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there? That seems like an un-useful definition.
I am not familiar with Chad's transportation system.
As far as I know, its roads have no numbers.
Surely they have some sort of names.
Not that I'm aware of, although I suppose it's possible. I imagine the road to Abéché is probably just called "the road to Abéché" (in Chadian Arabic or whatever language, of course). Your assumption that all roads have names or numbers is ill-founded.
Heck, I'm an American, and I grew up in an area where the rural roads didn't even have names or numbers until the 2000s. So, for example, everyone knew the route to get from Herndon to Ludell, but that route had neither name nor number. I'm not even 100% sure it has a name or number even today, as I can't find any online map with any labels there. The official county map labels it as "RS 179" but, as far as I know, those RS designations only exist on paper. And besides, they are only applied to roads of some local importance:
this road (https://goo.gl/maps/uoFpScz4tyoNdAjq9) doesn't have such a designation. By your definition of routes being "designations upon certain roads", then, clinching that road does not result in clinching a route. (They've probably been named or numbered since I lived there, even if I can't find it on any online map, but they certainly didn't have names or numbers before 2000.) To get to a friend's house, I had to know where he lived and where to turn to get there–they didn't have addresses other than rural mail route numbers. My dad had a big map of the county on the wall with every farm labeled.
I must therefore conclude that, by your definition, clinching roads in a place with no names or numbers given to them, it is impossible to clinch any routes. And that is, as I said, un-useful.
U2 sang something about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FsrPEUt2Dg
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 09:35:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 08:39:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 09, 2022, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 09, 2022, 11:35:24 AM
Routes are designations upon certain roads.
So, if a person has traveled every inch of road in the entire Republic of Chad, then they still haven't clinched any routes there? That seems like an un-useful definition.
I am not familiar with Chad's transportation system.
As far as I know, its roads have no numbers.
Surely they have some sort of names.
Not that I'm aware of, although I suppose it's possible. I imagine the road to Abéché is probably just called "the road to Abéché" (in Chadian Arabic or whatever language, of course). Your assumption that all roads have names or numbers is ill-founded.
Heck, I'm an American, and I grew up in an area where the rural roads didn't even have names or numbers until the 2000s. So, for example, everyone knew the route to get from Herndon to Ludell, but that route had neither name nor number. I'm not even 100% sure it has a name or number even today, as I can't find any online map with any labels there. The official county map labels it as "RS 179" but, as far as I know, those RS designations only exist on paper. And besides, they are only applied to roads of some local importance: this road (https://goo.gl/maps/uoFpScz4tyoNdAjq9) doesn't have such a designation. By your definition of routes being "designations upon certain roads", then, clinching that road does not result in clinching a route. (They've probably been named or numbered since I lived there, even if I can't find it on any online map, but they certainly didn't have names or numbers before 2000.) To get to a friend's house, I had to know where he lived and where to turn to get there–they didn't have addresses other than rural mail route numbers. My dad had a big map of the county on the wall with every farm labeled.
I must therefore conclude that, by your definition, clinching roads in a place with no names or numbers given to them, it is impossible to clinch any routes. And that is, as I said, un-useful.
Yep, no names or routes means you can't clinch routes.
I mean, clinching un-routed roads, you'd just say "I've clinched all the roads in this area."
You can't refer to routes when they don't exist.
:ded:
That is hard core.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 09, 2022, 11:00:52 PM
:ded:
That is hard core.
And the rent was real hard core.
If you clinch pavement, do you need to reclinch the road if it gets milled & resurfaced?
(I guess I do that on the local & county roads around me on bike when that happens)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 10, 2022, 09:06:40 AM
If you clinch pavement, do you need to reclinch the road if it gets milled & resurfaced?
(I guess I do that on the local & county roads around me on bike when that happens)
No.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 10, 2022, 09:06:40 AM
If you clinch pavement, do you need to reclinch the road if it gets milled & resurfaced?
(I guess I do that on the local & county roads around me on bike when that happens)
Resurfaced, definitely not. However, I've struggled with what to do with surface roads that get upgraded to freeway. The road stays in the same place, but the nature of the road changes quite a bit. Whenever feasible, I will try to go back and hit those roads again.
Quote from: Rothman on June 10, 2022, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 10, 2022, 09:06:40 AM
If you clinch pavement, do you need to reclinch the road if it gets milled & resurfaced?
No.
I was under the impression you clinch routes, not pavement.
Quote from: kphoger on June 10, 2022, 12:10:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 10, 2022, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 10, 2022, 09:06:40 AM
If you clinch pavement, do you need to reclinch the road if it gets milled & resurfaced?
No.
I was under the impression you clinch routes, not pavement.
Yes.
Not only are you clinching routes, I think a clinch should only count if you're following the spirit, or the intended purpose, of a route. Interstate? You have to use all of it to travel to another state. Alternate route? The main route must also have been viable for where you're going. Bypass? You need to have a reason unrelated to clinching to not use the main route. Business? Must use it for business purposes. Truck? Self-explanatory.
Quote from: bm7 on June 10, 2022, 02:26:53 PM
Not only are you clinching routes, I think a clinch should only count if you're following the spirit, or the intended purpose, of a route. Interstate? You have to use all of it to travel to another state. Alternate route? The main route must also have been viable for where you're going. Bypass? You need to have a reason unrelated to clinching to not use the main route. Business? Must use it for business purposes. Truck? Self-explanatory.
But then nobody will be able to clinch I-97 :poke:
The only clinching I keep accurate records about are state, US, interstate, and numbered county routes in California. If some road that I've clinched is rerouted, I put an "asterisk" on it. Currently, my only asterisk is on US-101, because of the Willits Bypass. Last time I was there, it was one week before the bypass opened, so I could see most of it from the old road, but I still intend to drive the bypass next time I'm in that part of the state.
Since I'm having a harder and harder time to find roads to clinch in California, I'm beginning to wish that I had kept separate track of which roads I've driven in each direction. Often, the experience of a piece of road is quite different depending on the direction, because certain things are only visible in one direction. Yet not having kept track of that in the past, I could never re-clinch anything without starting nearly from scratch.
Once I've clinched a long significant road, I then start looking for old alignments to explore. Along US-395, I've driven on bits of road with weeds growing up through the cracks, just to imagine what it was like when there were old Model Ts on it. I managed to drive a piece of the old CA-178 that was buried under Lake Isabella, when the lake was really, really low five or six years ago. But I think that's above and beyond "clinching".
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 08, 2022, 10:54:21 PM
I have about the sloppiest criteria for clinching as anyone you'll ever meet. It basically boils down to "If I was able to reasonably experience what was marked as Route X between points A and B at the time I was there, then I clinched Route X between points A and B". There's too much stuff I want to see in my life to dick around driving back to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or whatever because they realigned a mile of road and I need it to keep a clinch. That's so fiddly I wouldn't have any fun doing it (and in fact would start to actively resent having to do it), so I don't.
- Route closure with detour– If Route X was closed, the detour counts.
[/li][li]Sight clinching–If I can follow along the route and keep sight of it the whole time (like on a frontage road or a parallel street) I count it even if I'm not on the road itself. If I wouldn't be experiencing anything different if I was on the mainline, there's no point drawing a distinction. (Note that if there's a route that runs along the frontage road and I'm on a freeway mainline, like how MO-97 parallels I-44 for a bit, I don't count that since it's much easier to see what a freeway is like from a frontage road than the reverse.)[/li][/list]
So for me these two go together. In Indiana and I believe several other states, when there's a road closure on a highway, even if it's just a short closure for a bridge out, the official signed detour follows signed highways which might bypass 10 and sometimes even more miles of the route. I will always go for the shortest possible route around the closed part rather than the official detour, especially if it's an area I'm not likely to return to later.[/list]
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 07:29:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Nah. If the route number changes, you lost the clinch.
By that logic, if a route number was simply changed and you have already driven the entire highway in question then you would still consider it an un-clinch? Wouldn't that not just be a clinch of the new route number designation by default?
I clinched the old route, not the new route. It isn't about pavement. It's about clinching routes. If the route number changes, I have not clinched the new route.
Suppose they add a route number while keeping the old one in place. The example that comes to mind for me is the new I-14 in Texas. We lived in Copperas Cove when I was born but moved away when I was one year old and I've never been back. I didn't have the current alignment of US-190 in that area clinched because the Killeen bypass didn't exist back then (heck, a fair number of streets in Copperas Cove were unpaved, according to my mother), but either way, in my view I certainly don't have any mileage travelled on I-14 even though a good part of it is "the same road" as US-190.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 05, 2022, 10:44:57 AM
In particular, can a route become "unclinched?"
For example, if a route gets moved or extended onto a new routing, such as a bypass, do you view that you have to now take that bypass to "reclinch?" What about if it is moved or extended over highways that you have driven on previously?
A real life example. When WI-13 was given a new route through Marshfield, it was also re-routed between Wisconsin Rapids and Marshfield. Instead of taking the current WI-73 and WI-80, it was routed over WI-34 and US-10.
I had previously clinched all of WI-13, as well as US-10 and WI-34. Since the stretch through Marshfield was a completely new route, would you consider my clinching reversed until I took that routing? How about the stretch that was previously clinched as existing state highways?
Here's an interesting twist. Now that the NC-119 Mebane Bypass is open (almost completed), I wanted to traverse the whole bypass on my first trip. That required getting off of I-85/I-40 at the Trollingwood exit (Exit 152) to get to NC-119 in order to catch the first 100 feet of the project (which is south of Exit 153). But there are also two other segments of the project: (1) the new connector to US-70; and (2) the new connector to South Fifth Street Extension (former NC-119). I have taken the S Fifth St Ext connector many times since it first opened three or four years ago. But I just picked off the US-70 connector this week. Which is a good thing, because that is working great as a bypass around the north side of Mebane and I've already taken it four more times this week.
Fun fact: The South Fifth Street Extension connector was routed to align up with the South Third Street Extension. Not sure why, but that entire section of the South Third Street Extension has been renamed as South Fifth Street Extension. There's only two (maybe three) houses on the new
connector, so its not a big impact on the Postal Service. It looks like the old section of the South Fifth Street Extension is still named that as well. There's only eight of those houses remaining. Anyhow, it is strange coming up and seeing blades for "S Fifth Street Ext" and "S Third Street Ext" at the same intersection.
Anybody else's head spinning about the perhaps subtle differences between "extension" and "connector" here?