One 737 company I knew not only did not concern itself with obstacles in the take off flight path, but fiddled the runway analyses by changing the heights of the obstacles that were on State published charts to get better take off weights. This in one case gave the company a 7000 kgs advantage of another operator taking off on the same runway. The regulator had no idea what was going on under it's nose. No problem with that unless you happened to lose an engine at a critical position on take off.
I saw this sort of thing in a Greek island runway where the so called "escape " procedure stopped short of an island situated in the departure splay where the flap retract height was 800 ft if I recall and the published escape track ran through the island.
When the performance engineers of this substantial company were told of the problem, they shrugged collective shoulders and said it was up to the pilot to use his airmanship in avoiding the hill on the island at night or in IMC, and that the obstruction chart issued by the State stopped one mile short of the hill - very convenient. Legal maybe, but not safe.
My guess is that many pilots would probably be unaware of the protected distance applicable to individual runway analyses take off charts and the potential danger of being literally in the dark. Few runway analyses charts print the survey distance on them.
Considering that at max take off weight a 737 could be still at 1000 ft at 10 miles while accelerating on one engine during the flap retraction process, you would assume that pilots would be taking an active interest in the dimensions of the surveyed flight path?
Without that info available on the take off chart, the pilots are in an invidious position. Pilots have to rely 100% on the veracity of the performance engineer's work otherwise they are in serious trouble in event of an engine failure at the wrong time.