Since Noonan already broke up this J&L/amita17 page, I signed in to reply to Noonan. First of all, I would hope that Oregon would not take it upon themselves to archive caches just because they haven’t been found in five years or more. If they have DNFs or other logs mentioning problems, like NMs or NAs, then perhaps the Oregon reviewers could take action to bring them to the attention of the COs prior to any archival. That’s what we have here even without the lonely cache game. (Thank you, Wis Kid!) However, if there are hides that have had no logs on them in five years or more, I do not believe that is cause for archival. Some caches don’t see much action if they are out of the way and/or have high D/T ratings. Even COs may not do regular checks on some hides that appear to have no maintenance issues or if they do checks, they may not log those online. I know I have several hides that I have not visited in years for maintenance plus some that I have checked on but I didn’t remember to write any CO logs on them. I do look at the online DNF logs I get but if it’s like a DNF on a guardrail hide from a cacher with two finds, I will wait to run out until more people log DNFs, especially if they are seasoned cachers who do know where to look for key cases on guardrails.
Perhaps you can write a standard online CO log for the caches you have out in Oregon that you think might still be OK, just not seeing much action because of physical location or puzzle difficulty. (Noonan puzzles? Difficult???) That would show that you are not an uninvolved CO even though you are now a couple of thousand miles away.
.
