What's your farthest-away clinch?

[Mapmikey]

Australia Highway 1 is the longest numbered route in the world at 9,000 miles.  Since I have been on none of it, it is the route I am farthest away from clinching...

Nah.  You're even further away from clinching highways that don't exist anymore.

Does a highway no longer exist if remember it and can still traverse it?  Tangibly I've found little personal difference whether a sign route is active on a DOT log or not. 

I have clinches of routes that have been fully destroyed and truly no longer exist.

And of course I have clinches of routes that have been renumbered something else.

For purposes of what numbers have I clinched, I count any examples of those two.

I also count the renumbered route as a clinch even if I only drove it before it was renumbered.

[Max Rockatansky]

Australia Highway 1 is the longest numbered route in the world at 9,000 miles.  Since I have been on none of it, it is the route I am farthest away from clinching...

Nah.  You're even further away from clinching highways that don't exist anymore.

Does a highway no longer exist if remember it and can still traverse it?  Tangibly I've found little personal difference whether a sign route is active on a DOT log or not. 

I have clinches of routes that have been fully destroyed and truly no longer exist.

And of course I have clinches of routes that have been renumbered something else.

For purposes of what numbers have I clinched, I count any examples of those two.

I also count the renumbered route as a clinch even if I only drove it before it was renumbered.

I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at.  For example are a bunch of decommissioned state highways here in California.  What makes something like CA 176 less worthy of a drive or "clinch" simply because Caltrans has relinquished it?  The entire corridor of roads comprising 176 still exists and can still be driven.

[drebbin37]

WA 401 is about 3100 miles from my home in CT.

[Mapmikey]

Australia Highway 1 is the longest numbered route in the world at 9,000 miles.  Since I have been on none of it, it is the route I am farthest away from clinching...

Nah.  You're even further away from clinching highways that don't exist anymore.

Does a highway no longer exist if remember it and can still traverse it?  Tangibly I've found little personal difference whether a sign route is active on a DOT log or not. 

I have clinches of routes that have been fully destroyed and truly no longer exist.

And of course I have clinches of routes that have been renumbered something else.

For purposes of what numbers have I clinched, I count any examples of those two.

I also count the renumbered route as a clinch even if I only drove it before it was renumbered.

I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at.  For example are a bunch of decommissioned state highways here in California.  What makes something like CA 176 less worthy of a drive or "clinch" simply because Caltrans has relinquished it?  The entire corridor of roads comprising 176 still exists and can still be driven.

Decommissioned in Virginia in practice is renumbered because all secondary routes are posted as something. So I lump those two things together.

I agree with the philosophical stance you present. I have clinched the majority of decommissioned state routes in Virginia (several dozen). If I lived closer to South Carolina I would work on their decommissioned state highways (several hundred).

[formulanone]

Almost a tie between Hawaii's Highway 50 and Catalunya's Autovia C-60, depending on where I lived relative to each clinch.

[Bickendan]

The Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Setu in New Delhi, India, though that will soon be invalidated by an eastern extension over the Yamuna River.

Otherwise, the Maa Flyover in Kolkata.

[Scott5114]

What makes something like CA 176 less worthy of a drive or "clinch" simply because Caltrans has relinquished it?  The entire corridor of roads comprising 176 still exists and can still be driven.

Because you live a hundred years and you die, so you have to pick and choose some subset of existing roads that is worth clinching.

When you decide to make that subset "current numbered highways", you're basically allowing the state to serve as an automatic importance filter for you. That will filter out some gems, yes, but it will also filter out a hell of a lot of unimpressive local access roads, suburban arterials, and the like. I don't think there's any shame in starting with the state's list as a base and then adding to it here and there if there are off-system routes that catch your fancy.

[Max Rockatansky]

What makes something like CA 176 less worthy of a drive or "clinch" simply because Caltrans has relinquished it?  The entire corridor of roads comprising 176 still exists and can still be driven.

Because you live a hundred years and you die, so you have to pick and choose some subset of existing roads that is worth clinching.

When you decide to make that subset "current numbered highways", you're basically allowing the state to serve as an automatic importance filter for you. That will filter out some gems, yes, but it will also filter out a hell of a lot of unimpressive local access roads, suburban arterials, and the like. I don't think there's any shame in starting with the state's list as a base and then adding to it here and there if there are off-system routes that catch your fancy.

Two that I can think of in your area that fit what I'm getting would be Scenic Loop Drive in Red Rock Canyon and Valley of Fire Road.  Both were former pre-1976 state highway segments (at least partially).  It feels incomprehensible to me that someone visiting southeast Nevada for the first time would pick an urban arterial like NV 574 on Cheyanne to be prioritized.  I do concede that the two roads I cited would be likely picked initially for scenic reasons versus having advanced knowledge of pre-1976 Nevada state highways. 

[Scott5114]

What makes something like CA 176 less worthy of a drive or "clinch" simply because Caltrans has relinquished it?  The entire corridor of roads comprising 176 still exists and can still be driven.

Because you live a hundred years and you die, so you have to pick and choose some subset of existing roads that is worth clinching.

When you decide to make that subset "current numbered highways", you're basically allowing the state to serve as an automatic importance filter for you. That will filter out some gems, yes, but it will also filter out a hell of a lot of unimpressive local access roads, suburban arterials, and the like. I don't think there's any shame in starting with the state's list as a base and then adding to it here and there if there are off-system routes that catch your fancy.

Two that I can think of in your area that fit what I'm getting would be Scenic Loop Drive in Red Rock Canyon and Valley of Fire Road.  Both were former pre-1976 state highway segments (at least partially).  It feels incomprehensible to me that someone visiting southeast Nevada for the first time would pick an urban arterial like NV 574 on Cheyanne to be prioritized.  I do concede that the two roads I cited would be likely picked initially for scenic reasons versus having advanced knowledge of pre-1976 Nevada state highways. 

But on the other hand, as someone who has spent the last couple years gradually doing all of those urban arterials, I'm glad I did. Having that checklist to work through took me to a lot of parts of the Las Vegas Valley I would have no need to go to otherwise. So I got a much better feel for what different neighborhoods of Las Vegas are like than if I just checked out the freeways and then fucked off to Red Rock afterward.

That being said, I didn't run around trying to do them all in a week like a roadgeek tourist might be tempted to do, and I wouldn't advise that since you'll get burnt out fast. Even so, I think NV 582 and NV 612 are worth checking out for no other reason than you can see some pretty ridiculous shit along them, so they give you a window into the side of Las Vegas you don't see on TV.

[kphoger]

you have to pick and choose some subset of existing roads that is worth clinching.

No I don't. 

[Scott5114]

you have to pick and choose some subset of existing roads that is worth clinching.

No I don't. 

check out Mr. Immortality over here

[kphoger]

I realize that I creatively snipped the context but, just in case it wasn't obvious...

I meant that I don't have any list of roads that's worth clinching.  In fact, I can't think of a single time I've actually make clinching any route part of my driving plan for any trip.  Any clinch that I've posted on this forum has simply been a route that I happen to have driven all portions of—not one that I actually intended to clinch.

To me, the whole concept of "a route worth clinching" is nonsensical.  I can think of routes that are "worth driving", but I give just barely more than zero fucks about clinching those routes.  The only time I give any thought to missing a clinch is if I've got almost all of it but am only missing a tiny portion—but that's just kind of annoying, not a letdown or a failure.  To me, the concept of "a route worth clinching" is about as silly as the concept of "a store worth clinching every aisle of".

As an example...  I've driven all 410 miles of US-277 between the Red River and Del Rio, TX—basically, all of it from the Oklahoma state line to the Mexican border (not counting the part southeast of Del Rio)—but the only reason I have the portion through San Angelo is because I was helping my friend move stuff into a storage unit and our motel for the return trip was in San Angelo.  Otherwise, I'd be perfectly happy bypassing San Angelo via Loop-306 and/or US-67 every single time.

[JayhawkCO]

Mauritius Highway M1 - 10,737 miles away.

Given that an antipode is 12,430 miles away, and mine is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, I don't know that there's actually a farther away highway I could clinch.

[Max Rockatansky]

What makes something like CA 176 less worthy of a drive or "clinch" simply because Caltrans has relinquished it?  The entire corridor of roads comprising 176 still exists and can still be driven.

Because you live a hundred years and you die, so you have to pick and choose some subset of existing roads that is worth clinching.

When you decide to make that subset "current numbered highways", you're basically allowing the state to serve as an automatic importance filter for you. That will filter out some gems, yes, but it will also filter out a hell of a lot of unimpressive local access roads, suburban arterials, and the like. I don't think there's any shame in starting with the state's list as a base and then adding to it here and there if there are off-system routes that catch your fancy.

Two that I can think of in your area that fit what I'm getting would be Scenic Loop Drive in Red Rock Canyon and Valley of Fire Road.  Both were former pre-1976 state highway segments (at least partially).  It feels incomprehensible to me that someone visiting southeast Nevada for the first time would pick an urban arterial like NV 574 on Cheyanne to be prioritized.  I do concede that the two roads I cited would be likely picked initially for scenic reasons versus having advanced knowledge of pre-1976 Nevada state highways. 

But on the other hand, as someone who has spent the last couple years gradually doing all of those urban arterials, I'm glad I did. Having that checklist to work through took me to a lot of parts of the Las Vegas Valley I would have no need to go to otherwise. So I got a much better feel for what different neighborhoods of Las Vegas are like than if I just checked out the freeways and then fucked off to Red Rock afterward.

That being said, I didn't run around trying to do them all in a week like a roadgeek tourist might be tempted to do, and I wouldn't advise that since you'll get burnt out fast. Even so, I think NV 582 and NV 612 are worth checking out for no other reason than you can see some pretty ridiculous shit along them, so they give you a window into the side of Las Vegas you don't see on TV.

I've been chipping away at the area since 2001.  I'm pretty sure that I actually have everything clinched in Clark County but I would need to sit down really check that closely.  For a time I had a store in my district AOR in Laughlin.  Laughlin was a pretty decent place to stage trips from given the hotel rates at the time were super cheap. 

[Max Rockatansky]

you have to pick and choose some subset of existing roads that is worth clinching.

No I don't. 

check out Mr. Immortality over here

Funny, a lot of what I go do tends to get prioritized if I feel that a particular road is at risk of permanently closing.  That's actually happened a couple times in all the years I've lived out west.  I feel there is a good chance it is probably going to happen with Wards Ferry Road.  Wards Ferry has been "officially closed" for several years due to slip-outs but the locals keep pulling the jersey barriers down.  It will probably be only a matter of time before Tuolumne County does something more drastic.  I drove it in 2022 after the corridor had recently reopened after slide repairs.

Of course we have some really prominent examples of supposedly "not permanent closures" in California.  The Old Ridge Route, CA 39 and dirt CA 173 are the big ones.

[Scott5114]

To me, the whole concept of "a route worth clinching" is nonsensical.  I can think of routes that are "worth driving", but I give just barely more than zero fucks about clinching those routes.  The only time I give any thought to missing a clinch is if I've got almost all of it but am only missing a tiny portion—but that's just kind of annoying, not a letdown or a failure.  To me, the concept of "a route worth clinching" is about as silly as the concept of "a store worth clinching every aisle of".

Well, you're not the audience for this kind of thread then.   Getting what you happen to get from travels is all well and good, but a lot of us are interested in actively getting out there and driving just to drive, so it helps to have some sort of direction for deciding what to do. Case in point, Renee has a day off next month and wants to get out of the house and see some scenery, so I'm planning to use that as an opportunity to plug a hole that I have in US 93.

Funnily enough, she's been going on these sorts of trips with me for years now and the whole clinching/Travel Mapping/stats thing didn't click with her until recently, when I mentioned offhand that the two of us "only" have 31% of I-15 done. As she's someone who often goes for 100% completion in video games, I think that legitimately bothers her. Which means I might get a trip to Montana out of it at some point...

[kphoger]

Well, you're not the audience for this kind of thread then.

I still find it interesting to see what routes I have clinched.  When someone posts a question about what route numbers we've been on or clinched, I think it's an interesting exercise to figure out my answer.  But only as a curiosity after the fact, not as a goal to work toward.

Getting what you happen to get from travels is all well and good, but a lot of us are interested in actively getting out there and driving just to drive, so it helps to have some sort of direction for deciding what to do. Case in point, Renee has a day off next month and wants to get out of the house and see some scenery, so I'm planning to use that as an opportunity to plug a hole that I have in US 93.

I love getting out there and driving just to drive too.  Back before kids, Carrie and I used to do the same thing—except that we'd start out with zero plan and just turn wherever we felt like it until we decided to start heading back.

But, more to the point:  I plan driving trips in great detail these days.  I plot ahead of time the routes we'll take, the places we'll stop along the way for gas and meals and such.  And I might very well do so with an eye toward using routes or stretches that we've never driven before.  But that has nothing to do with clinching.  My direction for deciding what to plan—besides the sights themselves—might be to avoid duplicating a path during a trip, or choosing a byway instead of the main route or vice versa, or to use a former alignment, or whatever—but not clinching.

So, for example, if I were in your shoes, and had a stretch of US-93 that I hadn't driven before, and decided to do some driving around some week-end, then I might very well decide that it would be good to drive that missing stretch of US-93.  But only because I hadn't been on that stretch before—not because it would bring me closer to a 100% clinch of the route.

As a real-world example for me personally:  Over the years, I've been on every mile of I-35 between the Mexican border and Hinckley MN, except for a very short stretch in Laredo.  That last little bit in Laredo is kind of annoying to have not driven, and maybe one of these days I'll make a point of driving it.  But maybe not, because it doesn't really matter much to me.  And, even if I do, I would still have near-zero interest in driving the rest of I-35 north of Hinckley, because I don't care about clinching I-35.  That last stretch from Hinckley to Duluth can go undriven for the rest of my life, and who cares?  Now, if I did have a trip to Duluth, then I might take I-35 just to finish off the clinch, which is why I try to say things like 'near-zero' rather than 'absolute zero' interest—but who knows, I might elect to take MN-23 instead just to change it up.  And the only reason I would even consider finishing the clinch is that I-35 is such a long route.  I've been on a couple of other pieces of MN-23 before, but clinching that route wouldn't even factor into the decision.

[pderocco]

I think a good definition of a road worth clinching is "a road mostly worth driving". I've driven a lot of roads in the west that fit that definition. They all have stretches that aren't that interesting, like US-95 between Fallon NV and Marsing ID, or US-395 between Pasco and Spokane WA, but the remaining mileage is worth driving, and you have to use the less interesting stretches to get from one interesting stretch to another anyway.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think a good definition of a road worth clinching is "a road mostly worth driving". I've driven a lot of roads in the west that fit that definition. They all have stretches that aren't that interesting, like US-95 between Fallon NV and Marsing ID, or US-395 between Pasco and Spokane WA, but the remaining mileage is worth driving, and you have to use the less interesting stretches to get from one interesting stretch to another anyway.

The ION Highway has history that is more interesting than the actual drive.  The older alignment in Oregon is what held up US 95 being extended for years.  The Nevada Department of Highways dragged their feet on upgrading NV 1A north of Fallon for years.  That whole weird backtrack to Fallon via Fernley is what US 95A was commissioned in the first place.

[gonealookin]

But, more to the point:  I plan driving trips in great detail these days.  I plot ahead of time the routes we'll take, the places we'll stop along the way for gas and meals and such.  And I might very well do so with an eye toward using routes or stretches that we've never driven before.  But that has nothing to do with clinching.  My direction for deciding what to plan—besides the sights themselves—might be to avoid duplicating a path during a trip, or choosing a byway instead of the main route or vice versa, or to use a former alignment, or whatever—but not clinching.

That's about where I am on it.  I had never thought about "clinching highways" until I started reading posts on this forum, and it's not on the list when I'm establishing priorities on a trip.

We all have our idiosyncracies, and if clinching routes is important to someone (and it seems like there are quite a few of those on this forum), perfect.  My own thing is checking off states visited.  On this upcoming trip, with three full days to get from Omaha to Boise between golf tournaments, I'm deliberately taking a roundabout route up I-29 to US 12, and then across US 12 to I-94, for no other reason than I've gone 65 years without ever stepping in either South Dakota or North Dakota, and this is about as good an opportunity as I'll ever have to do that.  (I've never been in Nebraska either but with Omaha as a destination, that's kind of taken care of without extra effort.)

Further, a state gets extra points for me if I've driven my own car in it.  Going north from Omaha on I-29 takes care of Iowa.  Then the question becomes whether I want to take a little jog to the east around Sioux Falls and drive my own car in Minnesota.  I've been to both Iowa and Minnesota a few times, but all driving has been in rental cars.

Finally, simply driving through some sliver of a state doesn't count as a visit for me.  I have to get out of the car and buy something that gives me the state's abbreviation on a credit card statement.  Last fall, with some extra time between Memphis and Jackson MS, I swung through Arkansas (never been there) and Louisiana (had only passed through the New Orleans airport without exiting security), stopping along US 65 to buy a Coke in Arkansas and top off the tank in Louisiana.  So, yeah, I have my silly obsessions and I respect other people's obsessions as well.

[formulanone]

Speaking for myself, clinching a route (or path, highway, sidewalk, hallway, et al) comes out of a curiosity of "what's over there" or "what's down there which I haven't seen before", even if there's a possibility of it being very similar to where you've begun the journey.

Sometimes you find something interesting, and sometimes you don't. Not everything nor every place is going to reveal the secrets of the universe all at once, and even if it does, it may use the wrong typeface and color choices.