I did not recall that Tom D. said, "The most basic element of good routing: that the holes follow the same path a person would take if he were to walk the property before the course was built," but it is a good thought.
However...routing is also about the obstacle course, and that very often will go against the "most natural path" a person might take. Certainly at Cypress Point the casual hiker would never venture to the woods and then back. I think the routing might be different if Cypress were a casual hike.
The route from A to B is both actual and perceived. An actual route, when in a zig-zagged line, is perceived as longer, even when a comparable line of the exact length is absolutely straight. A person walking might attempt the more straight line, even it is means a slightly more difficult walk. A to B is often attempted as straight as possible. Just look at how people cut corners on sidewalks at intersections and in parks.
In my view the essence is whether the routing is balanced without being predictable. For example, a course can be guilty of taking too much advantage of certain views and features, but this is no reason to abandoned those attributes. And, with regard to park and length, a course can be overly "even," yet this is no reason to be quirky just for the sake of quirkiness.
The importance of routing is rising to the surface in our current time, for we are now uncovering courses where nearly everything might be changed and remodeled — except the routing. The bright and brilliant transformations of 1960s—1980s courses are often those which were routed well and had "good bones" as Desmond Muirhead often called decent routings. Indeed, Muirhead struck a honest note when he said that much of a golf course is the flesh and clothes—that, like a beautiful woman, it is the anatomy and structure which makes her so attractive at the core. Courses are no different—it is the "big picture" elements of site selection and routing that establish their greatness in nearly all instances.