So what makes a good course?

[Armchair Cyclist]

I watch races, and almost immediately forget where they took place, so I'm going to struggle to picture a lot of what people are referring to here, I suspect. There are a number of short bits of courses that I always recognise when I see them (eg, the one where they go round a running track then up a steep hill halfway down the back straight), but with the exception of the sand bowl of Zonhoven and the cobbles of Kapelmuur, I couldn't associate a feature reliably to a place.

So I am not thinking so much of specific examples of landforms or barriers, but the concepts of them.

Planks I can do without; off camber traverses and the hills that are only just rideable are probably my favoured features.

But what of sand: sandpits, sandy climbs and descents, tidewashed and compacted sand?
Are short sharp climbs with dead turns at the top and bottom the essence of the sport or tedium incarnate?
Do you long for, or dread,the twisty woodland paths?
Do whoops make you whoop, or do pump tracks make you puke?
Are stairs and ramps a great part of the overall challenge, or unwelcome man-made intrusions in what should be man vs nature?
Has racing been purer this year for the lack of extreme mud, or has the discipline been lacking its defining feature?
Long tarmacked straights, or as little road as possible, or more roads that are cobbled or gravel?
How much of the route should be suited to the high-power riders, and how much to the technocrats?
Plenty of passing places, or make them rare opportunities so there is a real battle for them?

Obviously, the impact a feature has will depend on weather, and what is marginally rideable in the race for men/women might be a different matter in the other event.

And I guess the most important element is probably some sort of a balance, but I think it would be interesting to see what is appreciated and what is not considered an asset to a route?

I think there are probably too many options to make a poll...