"It is hard to tell from a routing plan.
Interestingly as simple as the routing for The Old Course appears, I was still immersed in the game."
Mike,
Most every time I play a round of golf I too get immersed in the game, and as others have pointed out, that probably means the routing is pretty good; it's certainly almost always good enough for me. On the "small-scale", I can sometimes notice a certain feature and how it was or wasn't used; I'm trying to learn how to do that better, so I can think about/discuss these types of things more fully when I want.
But on the "large-scale", which was the second part of the question, I was asking about what I was missing/not seeing in terms of how the site was used as a whole, and whether the architect got the "most" out of a site. Often in writings and discussions about great courses old and new, "great routing" gets mentioned, sometimes in terms of how well the architect used the whole site and made the best course possible out of it. I didn't know how to even begin "looking" for that on the course, and was wondering what I was missing.
But now you, and several others in this thread who would know, have said that -- EVEN WITH a routing plan and/or topographical map -- it's hard to know if the architect has gotten the most out of a site. And although that doesn't exactly answer the question I asked, it's a very helpful answer.
Thanks (to all)
Peter