What do you Count/Not Count When Clinching?

[US 89]

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

[kphoger]

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

Even ones from before you were born?

[Scott5114]

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

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

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

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

I think everyone here has clinched the entire Interstate system.

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

[tq-07fan]

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

What isn't there for a reason?

Scenic views/overlooks that aren't particularly scenic^[1]?

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

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

Jim

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

Jim

[DenverBrian]

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

[Plutonic Panda]

Is that really a thing?

[cl94]

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

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[Rothman]

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

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

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

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

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

[pderocco]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

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

[hobsini2]

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

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

[oscar]

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

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

[vdeane]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rothman]

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

And, for the record, Max is wrong.

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[JayhawkCO]

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

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

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

[Scott5114]

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

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

In Nevada, you can do whatever you want.

[Sub-Urbanite]

If you're looking for ways to narrow the definition of a clinch, and actually useful one would be requiring that every road be driven in both directions.

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

[pderocco]

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

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

[pderocco]

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

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

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[vdeane]

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

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

Which booth?  I can think of an example where US customs is nearly a mile from the border and Canadian customs is nowhere to be seen even though the road is straight because the border is just that far away.  And that's nothing compared to YT 1.

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

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

[mgk920]

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

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

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

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

Mike