What is YOUR definition of a clinched route?

[cjk374]

I have always wanted to drive entire routes such as US 80, LA 1, and others.  I didn't realize it was a hobby until I signed up here.  Same with county/parish clinching, which seems to have a definition many people agree to.  But what about highway clinching?  Is there a definition that most people agree with?   

[oscar]

The first entry in the poll seems simple, and I think is what most people more or less follow. But what about bridge replacements, which will often make it impossible for people who don't regularly travel a route to maintain the "clinch" if you want to be fussy about it? Or other minor realignments? I usually disregard both if the new alignment is within the old alignment's right of way, or at least close enough to see one from the other.

Also, what about highways that end at international borders, or entrances to (or sometimes inside) military bases or other restricted areas? There are various viewpoints on that issue, with many counting as "clinched" if they turn around as close to the border or base gate as possible without crossing it. Those of us with passports, or military IDs, can be more fussy about that.

On the second poll entry, it is very difficult for people not deeply specializing in a particular region to travel all the old alignments, even assuming they are still open to traffic. The ones that have become business routes, I think of those as separate routes. So does the Clinched Highway Mapping project (as I expect will the successor in early stages of development).

One other variation: some count as "certified" a route clinched in both directions. This can create heartburn for one-way routes, though usually they're short enough to walk the "wrong-way" direction. I don't bother with "certified".

And do you have to drive the entire route, or is it enough to bike it (I think yes), or walk it (maybe, I count it)?

This is one of those topics that just doesn't lend itself to a poll, so I wouldn't change the poll other than to delete it.

[Scott5114]

Then there's the issue of what happens if a route is closed or under construction at the time you pass through. Can you clinch it or do you have to come back to complete the closed segment later? Jake Bear asserts a route as clinched if you follow whatever the signed route is when you show up, be that the normal route, or a detour. This seems like a sensible enough policy.

What if you get off a freeway for gas and then re-enter? You technically didn't traverse the route at all between the off-ramp and on-ramp. I tend to collapse interchanges down to a single logical point, and will not penalize myself for exit and re-entry, as long as I resume my trip at the same interchange. Likewise, I will consider a route "clinched" if I exit at the interchange it ends at, and don't continue on the mainline as far as it logically or physically goes before it becomes something else (either because of an END sign or because it merges into something else).

[signalman]

Then there's the issue of what happens if a route is closed or under construction at the time you pass through. Can you clinch it or do you have to come back to complete the closed segment later? Jake Bear asserts a route as clinched if you follow whatever the signed route is when you show up, be that the normal route, or a detour. This seems like a sensible enough policy.

What if you get off a freeway for gas and then re-enter? You technically didn't traverse the route at all between the off-ramp and on-ramp. I tend to collapse interchanges down to a single logical point, and will not penalize myself for exit and re-entry, as long as I resume my trip at the same interchange. Likewise, I will consider a route "clinched" if I exit at the interchange it ends at, and don't continue on the mainline as far as it logically or physically goes before it becomes something else (either because of an END sign or because it merges into something else).

Both examples that you cite happened to me on two different trips.  While attempting a southbound clinch of I-81, a truck fire in southern Virginia closed the highway and traffic was forced to exit, follow US 11 for 5 miles and re-enter I-81 at the next interchange.  I consider I-81 clinched, though if my travels ever bring me down that way again, I will most certainly make it a point to drive the missing 5 mile segment. 

On another trip; with an attempt on a southbound clinch of I-91, I exited for food, fuel, and pee break in Northampton, MA.  I had to use two back-to-back partial interchanges in order to access the businesses.  While I missed about a mile between the two partial interchanges, I still consider it clinched.  In hindsight, I should have used the next interchange to the south, which is complete.  However, I really had to pee and wasn't in the mood to deal with the slow slog along US 5 towards the businesses that I wanted to patronize just so I could pick up the missing mile.   Again, if my travels ever bring me up that way, I will make it a point to get the missing mile.  If not, I won't lose sleep over it and as noted, I consider it a clinch.

[froggie]

I guess I'm a bit more of a purist than others.  I'll ignore minor realignments and bridge replacements like what Oscar mentioned, but major realignments no longer count.  As an example, MnDOT completed a bypass of Bovey, MN for US 169 after I drove the route in 2007...only about a mile, but such that I no longer consider that segment of US 169 clinched.

Regarding international/border/base crossings...count me among those that are "more fussy" about that.  If you haven't gone to the documented end of the route, you haven't finished it.

I disagree with Jake regarding detours.  If you're off the route for 5 miles, you're off the route for 5 miles and it doesn't count.  In-between half interchanges doesn't count if they're considered separate interchange points.  But I'll generally follow something similar to Scott if you have what's considered a single interchange point and/or a route that officially ends at the interchange.

[cjk374]

One other variation: some count as "certified" a route clinched in both directions. This can create heartburn for one-way routes, though usually they're short enough to walk the "wrong-way" direction. I don't bother with "certified".

I would consider it clinched driving in one direction, not both.  Way too much of a headache.

And do you have to drive the entire route, or is it enough to bike it (I think yes), or walk it (maybe, I count it)?

I personally believe that no matter the mode of transport...walk, bike, drive...if you are on the route from one end to the other, it's a clinch.

[1995hoo]

I don't feel you have to have travelled the entire route in one direction for it to be a clinch. A combination of both directions is sufficient to me as long as you've done the entire route. Part of this arises out of practicality as to distant routes, coupled with the thought that insisting on going all in one direction might be a disincentive to explore other routes. (Example: I've driven the vast majority of I-95 going southbound, but there are a couple of segments of 100+ miles I've only travelled northbound. If I felt I had to go re-travel those segments in the southbound direction for it to be a clinch, it'd prevent me from exploring other roads I might like to see. Of course, there are two segments of I-95 I have yet to travel at all, so a clinch is irrelevant for now.)

So, for example, I've driven almost all of I-75 from Macon to Miami in the southbound direction. I've travelled most (but not all) of Michigan's segment in the northbound direction on a family vacation back in 1987 before I was old enough to drive. I've done a few of the segments in between in various directions. The remaining segments can be done either way, northbound or southbound or any combination thereof, and I'd still count it.

[english si]

Regarding international/border/base crossings...count me among those that are "more fussy" about that.  If you haven't gone to the documented end of the route, you haven't finished it.

When I walked the A2204 I even did the 10m or so the wrong way to the crossing next to the roundabout just to count it. (Came from the foot tunnel en route to the ferry, which was the main goal)

[triplemultiplex]

Direction doesn't matter to me.

A relocation of the physical highway or the routing of a highway makes it 'unclinched' and must be driven again.  Within reason.  A minor adjustment at an intersection or bridge replacement doesn't count.

Detours or closed portions (due to a wreck or weather) do not count towards "clinched".  You gotta come back when the construction is done to clinch that route.

Exiting at an interchange and getting back on at the same exit does not count against clinching a route for the gap between the exit and entrance.  But it has to be the same exit.

Borders must be crossed for me, but 'restricted' entrances do not need to be.  I'm not dealing with that BS.

[TEG24601]

For me, it is what is currently built, contiguously.  Otherwise, there are several routes I would have to take off of my clinched list, like I-69, and (WA) SR 109.

[cpzilliacus]

What if you get off a freeway for gas and then re-enter? You technically didn't traverse the route at all between the off-ramp and on-ramp. I tend to collapse interchanges down to a single logical point, and will not penalize myself for exit and re-entry, as long as I resume my trip at the same interchange. Likewise, I will consider a route "clinched" if I exit at the interchange it ends at, and don't continue on the mainline as far as it logically or physically goes before it becomes something else (either because of an END sign or because it merges into something else).

I thought about this when I drove all of I-70 last year.  I obviously had to stop for fuel more than once, but since I drove east on most of I-70 (including all of what I had not driven headed west, since I stopped at different points eastbound for food, fuel and rest), I do not see it as a big issue. 

Then there's the matter of rest areas on "free" roads and turnpike service plazas (I stopped at one on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and two on the Kansas Turnpike). 

Are those sufficiently part of the mainline that they do not matter?

[corco]

I'm a bit finnicky- my criteria for clinching are as follows:

1) Occurs between the hours of sunrise and sunset- I don't count driving at night as a clinch since you can't see the surrounding landscape. I might make an exception in a dense urban environment.

2) Must drive entire route in one direction to count as a clinch. Often, this actually helps me to frame trips. For instance, when I go to clinch Delaware here in a few weeks, I know I have to drive US 40 in Delaware westbound since I have committed to clinching US 40 westbound by driving good chunks of it in KS, CO, and UT westbound already.

3) Must be behind the wheel.

4) As far as borders and things like that - a sight clinch is fine. I try to avoid that whenever possible, but I'm comfortable with sight clinching if and only if I would have to interact with somebody in order to fully clinch the highway. As far as where routes end, I count it as clinched as I approach the road. For instance, if I'm headed westbound on a highway that ends at a diamond interchange with a freeway, and I want to go  northbound on the freeway, turning onto the northbound ramp counts as a clinch without having to continue under/over the freeway to the southbound turn. The exception to this is if the highway ends at a frontage road just beyond the freeway- in that case I'd need to go to the frontage road.

5) If I get on and off the freeway at the same point it counts, but it has to be at the same interchange. If I'm in Texas or something and dealing with widely spaced frontage road ramps, it becomes more difficult to justify exiting and get back on, so I take it on a case by case basis and occasionally drive backwards down the frontage road to get to an onramp upstream from where I exited. I make every effort on roadtrips to only get off at interchanges where the on and off ramps are both clearly part of a contiguous interchange.

6) I'm pretty subjective on detours- it depends on the nature of the detour, but generally the shorter the detour is the more comfortable I am counting it. I make an effort to avoid detour situations in trip planning, so this has only occurred once in my driving, and at that time I didn't count it (US 91 south of McCammon where it splits from I-15 was detoured to stay on I-15, then follow Idaho 40 over to the US 91 alignment, and that seemed like too much).

7) As far as re-routing, I still count within reason. I consider myself to have driven the entire Washington state highway system, though I finished it in 2008 and there have been a few minor re-routes since that time. As of the day I finished it, I had clinched the entire system, and as of the day I finished it the system had been substantially completed (no major plans to expand or change the system). That being said, when I finished Idaho last year, I had to go back and drive a portion of Idaho 16 that had just opened (even though it was after I clinched Idaho 16) because I hadn't finished the entire state yet.

[Bickendan]

I'd consider construction closures/detours clinched -- within reason. Back in 2008, I was detoured off of I-75 onto 475 in Flint and 675 in Saginaw, and off of I-10 onto 210 through Lake Charles because of construction. Because it's extremely unlikely I'd be back in MI or LA, I'd consider those segments of I-75 and I-10 as clinched. If it happened on an unclinched segment of a highway here in Oregon or an adjacent state, I would not because I can make it a point to grab that missing segment.

Usually I'd also want to actually traverse a route from end to end to clinch a route, whether by walking (OR 350 in Lake Wallowa State Park) or on some form of vehicle (bicycle, public transportation, car, etc). But there's the rare case where the route is literally one block long and you can see its other terminus from the other side -- Truck OR 204 in Elgin, connecting OR 204 to Truck OR 82 -- or even the northern part of CA 39 running from CA 2 to the gate to the closed portion of the route. I'd say if you can see the other end while going by the highway, it's not needed to physically traverse it, but then again, why not?

[vdeane]

I'm willing to "sight clinch" to fudge things if needed, with the exception of major bridges (though I'll likely make an exception to the exception for NY 182/the Whirlpool Bridge, as it's Nexus-only).

Construction detours don't count unless I can see from one end of the closed portion to the other and fudge it with a sight clinch.

Getting off at an interchange and getting on at the same interchange is fine, but it should be possible to sight clinch from one end of the interchange to another.

Same direction for the other clinch doesn't matter for me.

Minor realignments don't matter.  Major realignments I MAY count IF I can get video or street view or something of the new alignment, though I'll want to go back to re-cinch in any case.

I don't do the certifying thing, but IMO if the road is one-way, it should be certified with just the one direction.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'm pretty loose with my definition in some areas and strict in others. I'm one of those who considers a route clinched regardless of if it was done in sections of heading multiple directions, although currently I can only think of MN 95 as an example where I drove part of it east/south and another part west/north to clinch it (since if I'm driving a route with clinching as my intent generally it happens where I just follow the route one way, but if the route is longer then obviously I might have to break it into sections). I don't count I-95 in ME clinched though because we had no choice but to exit at US 2, as that's the last turnaround and we had no documents to enter Canada.

For those who only count one-direction clinches as official, what is your reasoning?

[corco]

For those who only count one-direction clinches as official, what is your reasoning?

Can't give you a good one- chalk it up to some OCD part of me. Of all my clinching criteria, I'm least likely to thumb my nose at somebody who has clinched portions of a route in multiple directions.

[NE2]

3) Must be behind the wheel.

Fuck you. I plan to clinch SR 535 by bike.

[corco]

3) Must be behind the wheel.

Fuck you. I plan to clinch SR 535 by bike.

Sorry, yes, meant a broader definition. You must be actively in control of whatever form of transportation you are using (with the exception of ferries)- I've clinched a highway by walking before!

[NE2]

What if you're on a tandem bike? Or in a shopping cart?

[corco]

What if you're on a tandem bike? Or in a shopping cart?

Tandem bike yes, in a shopping cart no- pushing a shopping cart would count. If you're riding in a shopping cart that is moving downhill without anybody pushing it, that would count.

[signalman]

3) Must be behind the wheel.

Seeing this reminded me of personal clinching criteria that I failed to mention in my earlier post.  I had mentioned my missing segments of I-81 and I-91, but I should note that those previous segments I have traveled. I wasn't personally driving, however (in both cases, I wasn't of driving age when they were traversed).  I could say that I have I-87 clinched, since I've been on its entire length.  There are big gaps that I haven't personally driven, so I don't consider it clinched.  Just thought that I should clear that up before I become branded as a cheater.

[Bickendan]

I clinched portions of OR 141 via public transportation. I clinched the entirety of OR 39, Bus OR 39, most of Bus US 97, CA 139 from Oregon to CA 299, CA 299 from CA 139 to US 395, and US 395 from CA 299 to CA 36 via charter bus for the Oregon Symphonic Band's trip to the American Bandmaster's Association in Reno in March. I wasn't behind the wheel in those instances, but I'm counting them.

[SSOWorld]

To the guy who said:

3) Must be behind the wheel.

Yes, you Corco
to quote "Tom from Ohio": DUAAFAFO. I agree with NE2. Being a passenger in a car allows for clinching IMO since you get to see it.  I don't have all the money in the world to spend driving around the country and I have enough work to do otherwise.  On the way home from NYC in 2014, I lost pretty much all my interst in long-distance driving.  This pretty much was the result of 3 long distance trips over two years - one of them being, yes, quite long. back to the subject -- The only exception I feel is if you were too young to remember, and even that is subjective (define "too young").

sight clinches are good for me.  I won't cross the Mexican border for two reasons: If driving, Mexican roads suck!  In general, the volatility caused by the US of A's insistence that everyone cooperate with the anti-drug campaign has caused tensions along said border.  Canada I'll cross into since it's friendlier, but usually I want to have more than a hop into as a reason.

Same for military bases, but for a different reason.  I'm not about to get my ass arrested for trespassing (or whatever the result of unauthorized entry is). 

One-way streets are a clinch for me.  Sure there are good buildings on the other side (or the opposite side of a freeway switch perhaps...) but I don't care.

For detours, It's a grey area.  Jake and Froggie are both right and both wrong.  What is your chance of getting back there?  If you live in Minnesota and go to Houston, but can't clinch a route?  Why spend the money to go back again?  That being said, I'll go behind the barricade if possible, but often the road will be ripped up and inaccessible in which I'll say "fuck it" and go around and use the detour as "my" official clinch.  By the way, you probably won't need to worry about it on a Mexican road - given the definition of a "Mexican detour" (at least what I saw in Baja California)

To sum it up, the definition of a clinch is subjective to the person performing it.  Most clinch efforts require a lot of time, enthusiasm and money to undertake.  The barriers that are in the way happen all the time and the effort should be taken up to one's best judgement - and courage  

That being said, time for a new hobby.

[oscar]

To the guy who said:

3) Must be behind the wheel.

Yes, you Corco
to quote "Tom from Ohio": DUAAFAFO. I agree with NE2. Being a passenger in a car allows for clinching IMO since you get to see it.  I don't have all the money in the world to spend driving around the country and I have enough work to do otherwise.  On the way home from NYC in 2014, I lost pretty much all my interst in long-distance driving.  This pretty much was the result of 3 long distance trips over two years - one of them being, yes, quite long. back to the subject -- The only exception I feel is if you were too young to remember, and even that is subjective (define "too young").

Most of my mileage in North America was with me behind the wheel, but I claim a few miles as a passenger, including during road meets, the southernmost < 1 mi. of I-5 which I traveled only riding a school bus on a high school Spanish class field trip to a high school in Tijuana (this was more than 40 years ago), and also part of US 10 in Minnesota as a little boy on trips between home in Fergus Falls and an aunt in Minneapolis (back when US 10 was the only plausible route -- I-94 hadn't been built yet). Also, all my mileage in Italy was riding a cab from one of Milan's airports and a bus to the other. In the United Kingdom, most of my mileage was with me behind the wheel, but I include a little walking on the sidewalks of A-routes in central London (ditto for a few miles in North America), and also short rides on shuttle buses to and from Heathrow airport.

I won't cross the Mexican border for two reasons: If driving, Mexican roads suck!  In general, the volatility caused by the US of A's insistence that everyone cooperate with the anti-drug campaign has caused tensions along said border.  Canada I'll cross into since it's friendlier, but usually I want to have more than a hop into as a reason.

I'm reluctant to drive into Mexico mainly because I have to purchase Mexican auto insurance for such occasions, which is costly and adds hassle. I've done that twice, but next time I might park on the U.S. side and do a "walking clinch" the rest of the way across the border. Canada is easier, though not enough to make casual "hop intos" practical. At the very least, you want to contrive some better reason than "hop into", to satisfy the border agents on both sides of the border.

[corco]

to quote "Tom from Ohio": DUAAFAFO. I agree with NE2. Being a passenger in a car allows for clinching IMO since you get to see it.  I don't have all the money in the world to spend driving around the country and I have enough work to do otherwise.  On the way home from NYC in 2014, I lost pretty much all my interst in long-distance driving.  This pretty much was the result of 3 long distance trips over two years - one of them being, yes, quite long. back to the subject -- The only exception I feel is if you were too young to remember, and even that is subjective (define "too young").

If you're awake and actively seeing it (i.e. you can remember it), I feel like it can count towards a clinch. I say "behind the wheel" to remove any ambiguity- I don't feel good counting a clinch from a roadtrip my parents took when I was 4 or when I was a passenger of adult age sleeping as I rode across I-80 in Nebraska. If I'm behind the wheel, I'm awake and aware of my surroundings.