I'm confused how this is even a debate, it's 2019.
Generating a GPX file is really simple, if you are riding the route yourself to test it, and have a GPS. Ride route, take track from your route, share. Done. It may not be the most elegantly crafted track file, it may not be the smallest number of points needed to convey the route, but it will be the route that you rode, as you want it to be ridden.
Now it may be that me being someone who's not done an AUK calendar event, but given the wiggly nature of some of the events I've done here, the route sheet would be multiple pages long, and quite frankly, my arm ain't big enough for that.
I won't do a calendar event that doesn't provide a GPX file, and the GPX file provided, I do expect to contain the full route, in as much detail as possible (if that's 100k track points, that's fine by me). I don't consider this an everything being provided for me kinda thing, I consider this a getting what I paid for kind of thing. I'm giving the org x amount of euros to do the ride, and part of that x is getting the route information in a sensible format. It's 2019, and I consider a GPX file to be the sensible format. If people want to provide a route sheet as well, that's great, but to me, the GPX is the more useful.
I was talking to a grizzled old fart of the Dutch Randoneuring community, and he was explaining to me that since 99% of riders are using GPS devices and thus the GPX files for navigation, the routes have become a lot more complex in their twistyness, They go into towns, rather than round them, because with electronic navigation it's easier. Else trying to get through Liege on a 300 would require a single A4 sheet of directions, and cover a distance of about 4km. In fact when you look at the route sheets provided for the Dutch events, it's basically a list of villages, and a distance. Sure you could try to navigate based on it, but it's going to be a pain.
RatN had something in the region of 35000 track points, is 3.1MB in size, and works just fine with a 2 year old wahoo... For anything run to an ACP distance, there should be no excuses about file size and number of points.
J
PS This of course does side step the utter fuckwits at Garmin who seem to think that the route you want to follow is made up of track points, where as the route points, (a much smaller number), is just, well, um, What ever garmin were smoking when they created this stuff I've got no clue, it makes no bloody sense.