* It requires a minimal amount of geographical knowledge, a
       city name that's familiar here and there is all that's
       required to get your bearings once you find it. - but not
       much. Mostly vague compass relationships is required.. In my
       odd way of thinking, its relationship to logic is that one
       must continually take a subjective perspective and switch to
       an objective perspective, using a combination of knowledge
       one already possesses, along with some educated guesswork
       (which would be the reasoning portion; perhaps logic is too
       strong a word to use here). There is a lot of backtracking,
       because you don't have everything nicely laid out for you.
       The solution continually unveils itself, then is obscured
       (when one reaches dead-ends and the like, and has to
       backtrack).

       You have to pay attention to not only compass directions but
       also city names and route numbers.

       It wouldn't take you forever to get back to New York from
       Texas. If I ever revisit it the project, it shouldn't be
       difficult to add a calculation that shows you the "minimal
       unique" route you would have to take - ie - the minimal
       amount of turns.

       But it's the frustration that's the whole point of the
       exercise. You DON'T get the luxury of "all the information
       in front of you" - and there's no shortcuts.

       Even a map (which you can certainly use) that _isn't_ the
       route map will only be of minimal help. And... that's the
       point of it.
       Using your Texas to NY example: How much knowledge are you
       missing?

       Well, do you know that Texas is Southwest of NY and that NY
       is northeast of Texas?

       Well, that's all you need to get back home.
     *