Talk:Aspen

More examples of vacation rentals

• Official Central Reservations in Aspen, [1]. Owned by 100% of the hotels, Condos, property management companies, bed and breakfasts in the area. Full online package booking service and last minute deals.
• Vacation Rentals in Aspen, [2]. Condos and homes offered direct by owner.
• Five Star Destinations, 453 East Hopkins Ave, Phone: 970-925 6638, [3]. Luxurious vacation rentals in Aspen.
• Country Village Rentals, 1-888-621-2877, [4] [5]. Search for and view Aspen rental homes online.

(WT-en) Maj, I assume you put these here to pose the question as to whether they are appropriate. In my opinion, they are -- narrowly. Aspen, like several other ski towns in Colorado, has a lot of lodging that consists of "vacation rentals" not directly accessible to the public, for which these rental services are basically the only way of getting access. Some of these are great places to stay. (I haven't stayed in the ones in Aspen, but have experience with their equivalents in other towns, and speak from that experience.) As distasteful as keeping submissions from touts may be, the Project:The traveller comes first policy seems to trump this concern, IMO. There's room for discussion, and if someone can come up with a way of accessing these rentals without going through the shills, I'd reconsider. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:36, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

Lake Tahoe is another example of a place where rental services are the only way to rent cabins, and I agree that they are useful for travelers. It would be nice if Project:External links included specific language that rental services are generally not OK unless they offer lodging that cannot be rented directly from the owner, AND if the location is one where travelers frequently rent cabins/apartments, AND only if the lodging can be rented for a a week or less. That would eliminate apartment finder services while not eliminating useful sites for weekend getaway destinations. It might also be helpful to include these listings under their own sub-section of Sleep. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:56, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, I totally think that there is a place for vacation rentals here-- I'm a big fan of them myself. I'm just trying to figure out a way to seperate the useful links from the spam. Unfortunately it seems to be one of those "I know it when I see it" type things. I've been waiting for some free time in which to try and frame an argument for allowing some and excluding others, but all I can come up with is a)there should be vacation rentals include where appropriate and b)we shouldn't open things up to each and every apartment finder/booking site. I guess Ryan's list is a good start. (WT-en) Maj 16:06, 5 August 2006 (EDT)

How are vacation rentals any different than hotels, lodges, and resorts? They should be given the same opportunities as other lodging options to be listed in the "Sleep" section. Omitting these legally recognized rental properties is against everything that Wiki stands for, and is creating an unfair advantage for hotels and resorts (which already have an advantage in staff and budget). We often get requests for parties of 8 or 10 people that want to stay together and that is not possible unless it's in a vacation rental type property. The City of Aspen and Pitkin County benefit directly from every vacation rental and these should be allowed to be listed in the same section of this page. —The preceding comment was added by Payntar (talk • contribs)

Since the discussion above started in 2006 Wikivoyage has adopted fairly strict guidelines for rental listings that can be found at Apt. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood and thank you Ryan. As vacation rentals are a common form of renting in Aspen I propose that a separate subsection of lodging options (for rentals available for less than one week) are added to the Sleep section of the Aspen page immediately. This has been a major discussion locally over the last year and the City fully supports these types of rentals, as many guests to Aspen cannot afford the extremely high prices of hotels in this very exclusive destination resort. —The preceding comment was added by 24.9.202.177 (talk • contribs)

I would support having rental listings in this article, but they must adhere to the Apt guidelines - most specifically, the business in question must have a physical office in Aspen that renters can go to in order to resolve any issues, and the office address must be prominently displayed on the web site of any business listing added to this article. The current guidelines were created with the intention of helping travelers find rental options in places like Aspen, but we tried to draft them in such a way that avoids opening the door to every web site that aggregates listings. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would stipulate that websites must only list exclusive listings (the property's shown on one company website cannot be listed with any other company). Also, having a 24 hour on-call phone line with a 5 minute on-site response time should suffice in lieu of a physical location. In this digital age with electronic door locks and online payments, there becomes less of a need for an office location.

John Denver

Is it a park or sanctuary?