What we should do is put chainlink fence around the corner, but make the part that the users loved the most accessible with a monthly pass that they can only walk on with shoes purchased at the university store.
A lot of universities with large campus grounds take the approach of observing the natural foot traffic wear patterns on grassy areas, and then build walkways where the most worn down parts are.
Its... pretty obvious.
If everyone is taking an alternate, non designed path... your design sucks, modify it to facilitate what people find more effective.
They did this in a park by my house. It used to have a long paved path that meandered through some woods. Engineers with the city noticed the shortcut that people were cutting through, and realized that most people didn't care for the long path. Apparently some anonymous person or several had been dumping gravel along the shortcut for traction and to make it less muddy. So the city paved the shortcut, and removed the long path so that nature would reclaim it.
Democracy in action.
It was kind of sad though to lose the long path because I liked walking through there, especially during the fall, but if it means having less maintenance machines going in there every week to pollute the place (lawnmowers, asphalt patching, etc) then so be it.
It is not design issue but not well behaved people. It is like saying that the trash can isn't a good design because people are throwing trash on the street. You don't path like that in countries with people that respect rules.
I think it's from the time where things were done manually and round lines were a pain to draw. There wasn't AutoCAD and undo features in a neat software 🤣
Not a universal rule, however. Theres the whole concept of "optimizing yourself out of the fun" and what not in video games. Or the hardships being part of what makes a game fulfilling. It depends on what your goal is
The tree on the right has that block missing in its shadow, the trees on the left are casting their shadows in a slightly different direction, and they guy on the dirt path's shadow seems too dark and clear. Once you pointed out something was wrong, it's hard not to see other mistakes.
The sun is fairly low in the sky, just a bit to the right of the guy on the dirt path, whose shadow is almost but not quite straight vertical.
The guy casts a darker and more crisp, or less diffuse shadow because he is less translucent, or more opaque, than tree leaves, and because the total distance from the heighest tree leaves to the ground is greater than the total distance from his head to the ground.
The lines of the tree trunk and lamppost shadows all converge toward where the sun is, if extended toward it.
The illuminated square in the one tree's shadow is likely a reflection from a window or some kind of metal fixture from a building or object behind the pov of the camera.
Uhh, so looking carefully at the picture, it appears they shouldn't have bothered with the inner pathway at all, and should have just connected the bridge over the canal (?) in the background to whatever is under the camera.
Not only does the current design fail to provide a short path in demand, it leaves a goofy little boulevard behind the benches in what appears to be a dense, desirable urban area where you shouldn't waste space.