I'll take this discussion to a little different place.
Overt Spray paint and shovel work was likely not the most noble of moves, but there is something in the concept we could talk about.
One of the things that we have found difficult in making progress with course additions in our area is not having "use history" on an undeveloped forested or wilderness parcel. However, trails users often do have "established use history" that is then leveraged into not only keeping what they have, but gaining the lions share of the park planning - often unquestioned and assumed. It's one of those possession is nine tenths of the law type deals.
Here's the deal - the trails go in without the hoops, (any hoops) and the user base gets built. Sometimes its organic, but in our area many times its strategic. I've spoken with our most zealous regional mountain bike org president and he shared that yupp.. they kinda "push their way in". Forgiveness is easier than permission. I like that bike and trails org, and they are doing well thought out stuff, and are land respective to the best of their abilities, but the disparity of how they get in was noticeable.
We've had examples where we've lobbied, attended meetings, raised the call for DG just to get to the table for a master plan concept - meanwhile, we find a local newspaper article comes out a week later touting the greatness of the 25 miles! of new bike and hike trails the local org "just placed". We say "way happened… they haven't even set the master planning process yet…". They got the trails in, they won. we lose even before getting to the table.
DG is in a tough spot that we can't have use history, until a course is placed… unless there is use history in another way.
It's terrible, and not for an organized club to condone,and not the way we locally do business… but…. it could be thought of as a pragmatic strategy if done respectfully. At a minimum, use history sometimes gets concessions elsewhere. But then again, if you believe DG is destined to always not be able to have nice things out of our own undoings, then maybe not the best path if it blows up unexpectedly.
Points well taken, and I for one don't believe you're advocating the actions taken in this example (painted landscape). A non-permanent mock-up, if you will, of a proposed dg course is much easier for people to comprehend than just the plans for one. when trying to incorporate a dg course into established mixed-use parks, I would think it would be of particular usefulness to ease any fears of "flying razor blades" randomly whizzing over playgrounds. Non-discing voters may hear "disc golf" and "near playground" in the same sentence and vote NO based purely on lack of knowledge. Seeing the actual layout, probable flight paths, and (hopefully) absence of obvious dangers could easily change a lot of decision-making minds.
Logistically feasible in all situations, of course not. But certainly something to consider.