I've often wondered how we can classify clinching of highways. I welcome any and feedback.
1: Pure perfect clinch - The motorist drives the full extent of the highway without departing from the highway. For instance, a motorist picks up I-66 in DC and takes it all the way to the I-81 interchange.
1a: Quasi-perfect clinch- The motorist stops only at on-ROW facilities (e.g. rest areas and service plazas) for things such as rest, meals, and bathroom
1b: Conditional perfect clinch - The motorist departs from the highway ROW to use local services immediately near the highway, but returns (on the same exit) once that stop is done. This is to allow for motorists who want a perfect clinch, but are driving on a highway without substantial on-ROW facilities.
1c: Overnight conditional perfect clinch - 1B, but with a hotel stay. Similar in spirit and rule to 1b.
2: Composite clinch - The motorist drives all of the mileage of the highway on different occasions. The segments are added together to clinch the highway.
3: Comprehensive clinch - The motorist drives all of the mileage on a highway (whether perfect or composite) and also drives all of the mileage on directly-related routes with the same name/number (e.g. Business, Alt, Historic, Bypass, etc). Also true with former routings when feasible (e.g. Lincoln Highway).
4: Bidirectional Clinch - Both directions of the same route are clinched (again, perfect or composite).
****
Pure perfect clinches are obviously not feasible for a substantial portion of major highways, so I wanted to give highway fans the opportunity to still get a perfect clinch while driving safely and prudently. (e.g. 1a, 1b, and 1c)
For what it's worth, I think for my example of I-66, you could easily get Pure Perfect, Bi-Directional, and Comprehensive (no alternative routes) in a single weekend afternoon. Best way to do it IMO would be to drive in east from the western end, turn around near E St. in DC, and then go back out west: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.0080183,-78.3008187/38.8959493,-77.0528715/39.0155128,-78.2907229/@39.126951,-77.9062863,10z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
A personal one for me... If I can a portion of the road I'm clinching it counts. Example: I saw no need to turnaround at the gate to the Marine Corps Base at the end of Interstate H-3 when I could observe it from the last exit.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2022, 01:02:13 PM
A personal one for me... If I can a portion of the road I'm clinching it counts. Example: I saw no need to turnaround at the gate to the Marine Corps Base at the end of Interstate H-3 when I could observe it from the last exit.
Maybe let's call that a "visual clinch". That modified could be added on to any of the four classes (1d, 2a, 3a, 4a).
I think it's been discussed a few times before, but I'll throw in a term I made up and no one else probably uses: the "Natural Clinch". I define it as traveling end-to-end on a route for which you had no previous travels at all. I most recently accomplished this on I-135 and I-235 in Kansas last week.
Add a "historic" subclass for when a route is clinched and a portion is later re-routed. (Do we even want to get into which of multiple re-routes is the one clinched?)
Pfft. There are pure perfect or composite clinches. All others are just pretending to be clinches.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2022, 01:02:13 PM
A personal one for me... If I can a portion of the road I'm clinching it counts. Example: I saw no need to turnaround at the gate to the Marine Corps Base at the end of Interstate H-3 when I could observe it from the last exit.
Often called on this forum a "sight clinch". Most often applied to international border crossings, or route ends at military bases. But H-3 has a crossover between the official (but unsigned) route end and the sentry station (that's where you turn off at the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial, or to request permission to enter the base), so it's not necessary to resort to a "sight clinch" of H-3, even if that could be justified in other circumstances as a substitute for a full clinch.
Quote from: oscar on August 17, 2022, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2022, 01:02:13 PM
A personal one for me... If I can a portion of the road I'm clinching it counts. Example: I saw no need to turnaround at the gate to the Marine Corps Base at the end of Interstate H-3 when I could observe it from the last exit.
Often called on this forum a "sight clinch". Most often applied to international border crossings, or route ends at military bases. But H-3 has a crossover between the official (but unsigned) route end and the sentry station (that's where you turn off at the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial, or to request permission to enter the base), so it's not necessary to resort to a "sight clinch" of H-3, even if that could be justified in other circumstances as a substitute for a full clinch.
The master has spoken.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 17, 2022, 12:57:33 PM
1b: Conditional perfect clinch - The motorist departs from the highway ROW to use local services immediately near the highway, but returns (on the same exit) once that stop is done. This is to allow for motorists who want a perfect clinch, but are driving on a highway without substantial on-ROW facilities.
1c: Overnight conditional perfect clinch - 1B, but with a hotel stay. Similar in spirit and rule to 1b.
In the case of the "conditional" clinches, the interchange design at the local service can make all of the difference. Assume that the interchange is a "perfect" cloverleaf. If the local service is on the right, you will miss the portion of the main route through the interchange. I would call this a "sight" clinch. However, if the local service is to the left, you will be taking the loop ramps getting on and off, and you will then have a "composite" clinch of the main route.
Quote from: oscar on August 17, 2022, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2022, 01:02:13 PM
A personal one for me... If I can a portion of the road I'm clinching it counts. Example: I saw no need to turnaround at the gate to the Marine Corps Base at the end of Interstate H-3 when I could observe it from the last exit.
Often called on this forum a "sight clinch". Most often applied to international border crossings, or route ends at military bases. But H-3 has a crossover between the official (but unsigned) route end and the sentry station (that's where you turn off at the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial, or to request permission to enter the base), so it's not necessary to resort to a "sight clinch" of H-3, even if that could be justified in other circumstances as a substitute for a full clinch.
The amusing thing is that I have base access and I would have used it if I didn't have a van full of passengers complaining I was trying to clinch H-3. Considering one of the passengers was my at the time vocal wife it did make the sight clinch the only viable option.
Quote from: oscar on August 17, 2022, 05:41:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2022, 01:02:13 PM
A personal one for me... If I can a portion of the road I'm clinching it counts. Example: I saw no need to turnaround at the gate to the Marine Corps Base at the end of Interstate H-3 when I could observe it from the last exit.
Often called on this forum a "sight clinch". Most often applied to international border crossings, or route ends at military bases. But H-3 has a crossover between the official (but unsigned) route end and the sentry station (that's where you turn off at the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial, or to request permission to enter the base), so it's not necessary to resort to a "sight clinch" of H-3, even if that could be justified in other circumstances as a substitute for a full clinch.
I managed to get out of the base through a right turn to escape after realizing that I was going to meet the guard at Fort Eustis (which VA 105 goes into)
I did H3 all the way, sat and thought about it in the lot, then left (last April)
I'm not sure how I feel about sight clinches when it comes to border crossings or other barriers to clinching a route. On the one hand, I understand that it's an inconvenience to cross the border, especially if it's not planned in advance, and you can often (but not always) see the border station from the last waypoint. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's justified to log a segment you haven't traveled on at all (while I view partial segments a little differently).
Quote from: webny99 on August 17, 2022, 08:38:25 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about sight clinches when it comes to border crossings or other barriers to clinching a route. On the one hand, I understand that it's an inconvenience to cross the border, especially if it's not planned in advance, and you can often (but not always) see the border station from the last waypoint. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's justified to log a segment you haven't traveled on at all (while I view partial segments a little differently).
I don't consider those segments clinched unless I cross the border. Can't say you've been on the entire route if you haven't in my book.
Quote from: webny99 on August 17, 2022, 08:38:25 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about sight clinches when it comes to border crossings or other barriers to clinching a route. On the one hand, I understand that it's an inconvenience to cross the border, especially if it's not planned in advance, and you can often (but not always) see the border station from the last waypoint. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's justified to log a segment you haven't traveled on at all (while I view partial segments a little differently).
If I've experienced everything a route has to offer, I consider it clinched. And in the case of a border crossing or whatever, if I can see everything between wherever I turn off and the end of route, I am not really experiencing anything new by physically dragging my tires over it other than wasting my own time. In that case, I'll pass and count it as a clinch.
Some people will only be satisfied with saying a road's clinched if you get out of the car and lick every expansion joint. If that's what you want to do, by all means, have fun with that. But nobody can say
I have to, if it reaches the point where it stops being fun and becomes pure tedium.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 17, 2022, 09:36:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 17, 2022, 08:38:25 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about sight clinches when it comes to border crossings or other barriers to clinching a route. On the one hand, I understand that it's an inconvenience to cross the border, especially if it's not planned in advance, and you can often (but not always) see the border station from the last waypoint. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's justified to log a segment you haven't traveled on at all (while I view partial segments a little differently).
If I've experienced everything a route has to offer, I consider it clinched. And in the case of a border crossing or whatever, if I can see everything between wherever I turn off and the end of route, I am not really experiencing anything new by physically dragging my tires over it other than wasting my own time. In that case, I'll pass and count it as a clinch.
Some people will only be satisfied with saying a road's clinched if you get out of the car and lick every expansion joint. If that's what you want to do, by all means, have fun with that. But nobody can say I have to, if it reaches the point where it stops being fun and becomes pure tedium.
Oh, I can definitely say that. And you must.
I guess this is obvious from my previous post, but I can see both sides. Generally speaking, I do view it as disingenuous to log an untraveled segment, but there are also shades of variation of sight clinches. If you truly can see the end of the route from where you turn off/turn around, I'm fine with calling that a clinch, especially if it's some obscure state route or something, but that's often not the case with border crossings. Even ones that you'd think would be easy to sight clinch, like I-29, often have long approaches (in that case over 2 miles), curvature approaching the border station, etc.
But to me actually crossing the border is part of the fun of clinching the route. Part of clinching I-29 is crossing into Manitoba, since part of I-29's function in that area is to connect North Dakota and Manitoba, so you haven't really seen all it has to offer if you haven't used it to its end for that purpose. Then again, I probably view border crossings differently than most since I've crossed them enough times that I don't think of it as a big deal (and it really isn't a big deal 99% of the time, although I understand apprehensiveness if you're not used to it.)
I guess it's one of those things that's never going to be one-size-fits-all, so I'm not going to object to how anyone approaches it.
The problem is in your part of the country there are a lot more valid reasons to cross the border (either fake or real), and it's a lot more routine than out here. When I clinched all the land bordering routes in northwestern MN two winters ago, most of those connect to absolutely nothing on at least one side if not both. Obviously saying "I'm just clinching MN 313" is not going to impress either border authority. So I got as close as I could and dumped out. And unfortunately CBP got a shiny new station on 313 well inland from the border.
At least there's Angle Inlet.
Crossing the border here is certainly more routine in terms of the volume of traffic crossing, plus the fact that there are only 4 crossings in the Buffalo/Niagara region, so they're usually all busy. But for the people that live in small border towns and surrounding countryside, crossing the border is in some ways even more routine than it is here, precisely because it's so remote that the nearest town of significance is often across the border, so you might need to cross for groceries and other necessities. But of course, less traffic also means more attention given to each car crossing, which is certainly a drawback.
In my view the two main workarounds to border crossing concerns are to travel with someone and/or plan a visit to a specific destination. I get that that's a lot easier said than done sometimes, but I don't know, I still feel like crossing the border is part of the experience of the route.
It's quite possible I'd feel differently if/when I ever got to a point where border crossings were the only thing preventing me from a clinch of a state or something. But then again, clinching an entire state highway system seems a lot more fantastical to me than planning a trip across one or more remote border crossings, so I guess that also goes to show why one size will never fit all.
Cllnching roads is whatever you want your criteria to be.
When i started using the term, I based it off of team standings where a team had an X by it with "clinched division". That was in 8th grade in the Spring of 1988 (or maybe 9th grade, things blur together over time...) when basketball season was winding down. I thought having ridden on an Interstate end to end (all at once or in pieces over time) would be akin to clinching it. Later on in high school I jotted down my paltry list of clinched Interstates on a sheet of paper. I believe i still have that original list, and newspaper clips of the standings that inspired me to compare clinching interstates with sports, somewhere around here...
When I met another road guy in 12th grade (Cary Todd, who is not on the forum), we discussed the concept and compared what we had both clinched. He and I rode around a lot after we graduated, especially late at night after he got off work. So we started adding 3dis in MD, PA, NJ and even NY. He did a cross country trip with his dad in 1993, and blew me out of the water then in our friendly Interstate clinching competition.
Cary moved out west eventually and we lost touch. Nonetheless I still kept a mental list of what I had clinched, despite knowing no other road people. It wasn't until MTR that I discovered others with our mutual appreciation or love of roads. I typed up my clinched list in html at some point during the Geocities days. I am sure others were keeping track of what interstates they finished at the time or well before then, but whether or not anyone else used the term clinched prior to the internet is a good question.
I like to think that it was my unique idea, but with many of us being like minded it's probable some other road person who was really into sports standings might have thought of the same thing well before we had an online community to commiserate with one another.
Sight clinches. Sub categories of clinching. If that's the level you want to take it then make the most of it. But some still get worked up when their thorough definition of a route clinch is not the same as someone else's. C'est la vie.
Quote from: webny99 on August 17, 2022, 11:29:10 PM
Crossing the border here is certainly more routine in terms of the volume of traffic crossing, plus the fact that there are only 4 crossings in the Buffalo/Niagara region, so they're usually all busy. But for the people that live in small border towns and surrounding countryside, crossing the border is in some ways even more routine than it is here, precisely because it's so remote that the nearest town of significance is often across the border, so you might need to cross for groceries and other necessities. But of course, less traffic also means more attention given to each car crossing, which is certainly a drawback.
Well sure, but I was speaking from a non-local perspective looking for excuses to border hop. "You entered into Canada on MN 313 to go to Angle Inlet, so why are you re-entering on MN 310 instead?"
The Canadian border authorities barely like it if you're the wrong demographic in the outskirts of Vancouver, let alone at a rural crossing. Not going to try my luck with random clinches where I can.
I did a sight clinch for Idaho's crossings since I didn't feel like wasting an hour getting my car thoroughly searched in a vain attempt to find drugs, firearms, or fruit.
Having been across a lot of crossings between U.S. and Canada, I think the paranoia about how guards will react is exaggerated. I've had grumpy guards, but no severe "you can't cross" events.
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 07:08:11 AM
Having been across a lot of crossings between U.S. and Canada, I think the paranoia about how guards will react is exaggerated. I've had grumpy guards, but no severe "you can't cross" events.
Not the case for Bruce, who is Asian and has had issues because of it.
I want to follow up by noting that I don't really value one class of clinch over the other. Restricted or tricky areas are a good example as to why a "perfect pure" clinch is either impossible or difficult in some situations.
But I do think there's a difference between, say, driving all of I-95 in segments over a 20-year span, and doing all of it on a single road trip (albeit with overnight stops).
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 07:08:11 AM
Having been across a lot of crossings between U.S. and Canada, I think the paranoia about how guards will react is exaggerated. I've had grumpy guards, but no severe "you can't cross" events.
I've been stopped for 4 hours and 2 hours at Vancouver airport and the Ambassador Bridge respectively in the past. Easily the biggest hassles I've ever had in immigration despite having been to 66 countries.
I don't think routes should be designated/signed beyond the point where you can't turn around before a border crossing, or within restricted areas. Would solve the problem of not being able to clinch.
As for what I consider clinching to be, I follow a sight rule similar to Max. If I get on/off a freeway to get food and/or gas, there are a couple reasons why I count the route as clinched even though I didn't actually drive on a few hundred feet of the route:
1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way
2. For routes where I'm not likely to ever be back to that area, it's a waste of time and gas to backtrack when you've already seen everything that can be seen from the roadway
For surface routes that have a bridge out, I treat it the same way. If I can drive up to the point of closure on each side and see the other side, I consider it clinched.
One exception I make to the sight rule is that if I'm missing an entire segment between two very close waypoints in TravelMapping, I'll not count it as clinched even if I can see those points from each other.
As for the category "comprehensive clinch" I consider bannered routes to be separate routes from the main route, so I don't really think about whether I've collected an entire "family"
We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 18, 2022, 10:34:25 AM
We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.
I agree. My standards are probably lower than most, but that's okay. If I miss one flyover ramp, whatever. My road travels are more about seeing different things and different parts of the country. If I feel like I have done so by traveling a road, I count it.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 18, 2022, 10:34:25 AM
We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.
Right. People should clinch like I do.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 18, 2022, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 07:08:11 AM
Having been across a lot of crossings between U.S. and Canada, I think the paranoia about how guards will react is exaggerated. I've had grumpy guards, but no severe "you can't cross" events.
I've been stopped for 4 hours and 2 hours at Vancouver airport and the Ambassador Bridge respectively in the past. Easily the biggest hassles I've ever had in immigration despite having been to 66 countries.
Not sure what the airport has to do with clinching land crossings.
So, out of how many times driving into Canada was that one two-hour delay? Were you detained for that time or was it how long the line was?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 18, 2022, 10:34:25 AM
We're overthinking this whole "clinching" thing.
Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. But regardless, it's fun to talk about. I think we've established that everyone has different ways they do it, but it's still been interesting to read everyone's thoughts on it.
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 11:09:52 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on August 18, 2022, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 07:08:11 AM
Having been across a lot of crossings between U.S. and Canada, I think the paranoia about how guards will react is exaggerated. I've had grumpy guards, but no severe "you can't cross" events.
I've been stopped for 4 hours and 2 hours at Vancouver airport and the Ambassador Bridge respectively in the past. Easily the biggest hassles I've ever had in immigration despite having been to 66 countries.
Not sure what the airport has to do with clinching land crossings.
So, out of how many times driving into Canada was that one two-hour delay? Were you detained for that time or was it how long the line was?
The airport, in theory, they could have denied me entry (or transit in this case) as well.
I've driven into Canada 5 times. That time, I was detained for that long as they searched every nook and cranny of the car while we waited in the building. It was my friend and I going on a road trip and they seemed to think it was odd that some 21-year-old kids from Kansas wanted to visit Toronto and Montreal.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 18, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way
You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2022, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 18, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way
You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.
That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2022, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 18, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way
You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.
That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.
Arguably so, but given that you'd have to drive that segment again anyway to get the clinch (according to this standard), it doesn't really matter all that much.
In any case, it's not an impractical thing to do, which was my main point.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2022, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2022, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 18, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way
You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.
That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.
Arguably so, but given that you'd have to drive that segment again anyway to get the clinch (according to this standard), it doesn't really matter all that much.
In any case, it's not an impractical thing to do, which was my main point.
If I as a traveler consider the route 100% clinched, to the point that I have no personal interest in going back to actually clinch that segment, it would introduce a mismatch between your stats on TM (i.e. which routes show 100%) and what you consider reality to be (i.e. that you consider that route 100% clinched).
I think that's maybe something that doesn't make it through to the expansion joint lickers–it is not that we
can't clinch the last few hundred feet of a route when there's a gate, it's that we
don't want to, because we wouldn't get anything out of it. So there's not really an intent to go back and get it at any point.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 18, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
I don't think routes should be designated/signed beyond the point where you can't turn around before a border crossing, or within restricted areas. Would solve the problem of not being able to clinch.
Here's a stupid question to throw into the discussion–do you have to drive anything after the END sign to clinch a route?
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 18, 2022, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2022, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 18, 2022, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 18, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
1. I track my travels via TravelMapping and there's only one waypoint per interchange, not separate waypoints for off and on ramps, so it's impractical to not do it this way
You could just mark up to the previous waypoint.
That ends up being less reflective of your actual travels than just logging right up to where you exited, especially if there's a long distance between exits.
Arguably so, but given that you'd have to drive that segment again anyway to get the clinch (according to this standard), it doesn't really matter all that much.
In any case, it's not an impractical thing to do, which was my main point.
If I as a traveler consider the route 100% clinched, to the point that I have no personal interest in going back to actually clinch that segment, it would introduce a mismatch between your stats on TM (i.e. which routes show 100%) and what you consider reality to be (i.e. that you consider that route 100% clinched).
I think that's maybe something that doesn't make it through to the expansion joint lickers–it is not that we can't clinch the last few hundred feet of a route when there's a gate, it's that we don't want to, because we wouldn't get anything out of it. So there's not really an intent to go back and get it at any point.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on August 18, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
I don't think routes should be designated/signed beyond the point where you can't turn around before a border crossing, or within restricted areas. Would solve the problem of not being able to clinch.
Here's a stupid question to throw into the discussion–do you have to drive anything after the END sign to clinch a route?
You could do it multiple ways I suppose. If the physical road continues, proceed past the end point from the route you just clinched and then clinch the entire next one in the process. :-D
However if you're from my area, an "END" route sign typically means if you go any further you'll be in a field.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 18, 2022, 04:14:19 PM
If I as a traveler consider the route 100% clinched, to the point that I have no personal interest in going back to actually clinch that segment, it would introduce a mismatch between your stats on TM (i.e. which routes show 100%) and what you consider reality to be (i.e. that you consider that route 100% clinched).
Right, but my point is not about the clinch itself, but about a nonimpractical way to mark it on Travel Mapping
if you use a stricter standard. Obviously, if you use a different standard, then things will be likely be marked differently. I'm certainly not arguing against anything like that.
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
2) Yes
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Spiritually? Yes. I think everybody agrees with that. Legally? YMMV.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
Of course the ramps are part of the routes. Otherwise, they would be discontiguous.
If I ever have the opportunity to try clinching routes near international borders, I'm not going to try crossing the border just to clinch it. I'll go to the last turnaround point and call it good.
I also am a supporter of sight-clinching where absolutely necessary. I sometimes take it on a case by case basis, usually applying it if there's a road closure or I exit and re-enter a highway at the same interchange. Where it gets messy for my is at larger interchanges with several exits. Recently, I was in the Detroit area and I had to figure out how to mark my travels at the I-96/I-275/I-696 interchange. That one was tricky.
Also, I haven't clinched I-88 in Illinois thanks to one section (according to Travel Mapping) that goes beyond the exit to I-294 north.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not?
Because Rothman really, really wants you to get out there and lick those expansion joints.
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
2) Yes
Got us going up and down ramps in a big circle just to clinch part of an overlapping route that doesn't even go past the exit :spin:
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.
That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/cEBBRI3.png)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 19, 2022, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.
That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/cEBBRI3.png)
I find that hard to believe and more because TN's got a lazy GPS coder.
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2022, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 19, 2022, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.
That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/cEBBRI3.png)
I find that hard to believe and more because TN's got a lazy GPS coder.
Isn't the I-76/I-80 interchange in Ohio the same way?
Quote from: US 89 on August 19, 2022, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2022, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 19, 2022, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.
That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/cEBBRI3.png)
I find that hard to believe and more because TN's got a lazy GPS coder.
Isn't the I-76/I-80 interchange in Ohio the same way?
I-76/I-80 has the toll ramp complication. This TN sillyness is different.
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2022, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 19, 2022, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.
That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/cEBBRI3.png)
I find that hard to believe and more because TN's got a lazy GPS coder.
What about rest area ramps for interstates? Do the ramps count as part of the route? It would seem rather redundant for them to count because then you're guaranteed to skip over the main section of the route between the entrance and exit ramps of the rest areas... so why wouldn't that also apply to ramps from the route you're clinching to other highways?
Quote from: royo6022 on August 19, 2022, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2022, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 19, 2022, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.
That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/cEBBRI3.png)
I find that hard to believe and more because TN's got a lazy GPS coder.
What about rest area ramps for interstates? Do the ramps count as part of the route? It would seem rather redundant for them to count because then you're guaranteed to skip over the main section of the route between the entrance and exit ramps of the rest areas... so why wouldn't that also apply to ramps from the route you're clinching to other highways?
No.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on August 19, 2022, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 18, 2022, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 18, 2022, 07:17:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: flan on August 18, 2022, 06:28:19 PM
Hypothetical: a state highway has a brief concurrency with an Interstate highway. I've driven the concurrent section and the sections of the state highway on either side of the concurrency individually at three different times. Does it count as a composite clinch even though I used none of the on/offramps that would be required to drive the whole state highway in one go?
Is what I wrote even intelligible? :)
1) No
Why not? Although I can't say I've run into this situation personally. I'm not sure the ramps I'm assuming you insist must be driven are technically part of the route, but it depends on the situation. A diamond interchange in the country where a route leaves an interstate is different from a major city interchange.
If I'm understanding correctly, the state route follows the interstate ramps, so the ramps are technically part of the continuous route.
Sometimes it doesn't though. I remember there was a thread discussing TOTSOs, and in Tennessee, I seem to recall, the official state route follows the centerline of one freeway and then turns immediately at the centerline of another freeway, and that none of the ramps you would actually take to get from one of the freeways to the other (and thus stay on the same route number) is technically part of the route itself.
That is the official route follows the blue line in the picture below and not any of the red lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/cEBBRI3.png)
Hell, Colorado's got some US route that does that at an overpass where there aren't even any ramps.
NY is an interesting case. Looking at the mile markers for I-87, Northway mile 0 is at the overpass over I-90, not on any of the ramps. That said, the GIS files do indeed have I-87 on the ramps. Also, this used to be a cloverleaf, so the mile marker would have been accurate for I-87 taking the ramps back then (northbound would use a loop).