I sometimes spend hours in negotiations with clients about course design. Do not repeat me, but some of my friends in the running business and I agree that non-runner organizers come up with race course ideas that are just, well, stupid. I encountered one two days ago that was inherently unsafe to the point that it will never be done again.
Different measurers will take different approaches to how proactive we are about course design. I respect that some people are not comfortable getting into a discussion about changing the RD's treasured design. Last year, I redesigned about 75% of a client's original course idea because there was no way to get in the required distance without major changes. When I later referred to "my design", the RD took exception, saying "I designed this course".
Using devil's advocacy to help illustrate a point: Ditsy Don, the RD of a multi-race event, comes to me with a request to measure a course he roughed out with his car odometer. The course crosses over the route of another race that will be conducted simultaneously. When I point out that he needs to change the timing of the race starts that he wants for these two races, he balks. When I suggest an alternate route, he has reasons why it won't be satisfactory or it may not be eligible for a permit. I go ahead and certify the course. Predictably, after race day, social media are flooded with complaints from participants about the fact that they had to dodge other runners crossing their path.
I have never been a party to such measurements, nor will I be. Last year, I had to tell one race organizing group that I would not be able to help them. They insisted on routing a 5K through the only (small) parking lot for the race. They were expecting several hundred people. There were other issues with the course - they would not accept that using a fixed and contiguous start/finish would require an out-and-back turn around section somewhere. I politely maintained my position until I realized I was on the verge of breaking into an outright argument with people I had just met. The manager of the start - finish area property understood my points, but he was the only one. He was not successful in getting through, either.
No way I was going to measure an inherently worthless course and put my name on the map, or even do it anonymously. I do not need to cite any USATF regulations to walk away from measuring a badly flawed course design that makes no sense. If the design will create safety issues, such as one I saw recently, and the race organizers do not agree with me, it is likely that they will not employ adequate police or course marshal or traffic cones on race day. They may put runners at risk for no good reason. As with the courses that Bob Thurston measured for a client that lied to him about how the courses would be used, a post-race uproar by participants and the authorities is not worth any certification fee for me. I venture that most of us would agree.