In the design of RNP procedures, I must generate my own terrain model and obstacles,
But we're not talking RNP here, we're considering a direct clearance using conventional aids or RNAV, under radar surveillance.
Perhaps, like Skybrary, I'm taking a Euro-centric view of the world when considering what ATC is or isn't likely to do. But the simple reality is that when London, or Langen, or Paris issues me a "route direct to SUMWE" instruction, then unless I have grounds for being suspicious about the instruction, I'm likely to accept it on the basis that ATC is responsible for terrain clearance associated with that instruction. In twenty years, I've never heard anyone given a heading to fly respond "standby a minute I just need to check the obstacle clearance on that heading against my charts...".
But I'm not for a moment suggesting that pilots should drop their vigilance in verifying that all clearances can be safely flown; nor, if you read the first sentence of his question, is lospilotos, nor, looking at the paragraph in "Pilot's responsibility", is Skybrary. But the role of the pilot in the circumstances described is one of verification.
As an example, I would point to the NOTAM's that are issued. I always wonder when I pilot sees a NOTAM that states a mobile crane, 200 feet tall, located 849 m, bearing 28 degrees from ARP...what does that really mean to the pilot?
Which is exactly why, ATC gives a direct clearance in the vicinity of that aerodrome, it should be one that does
not require the pilot to make the
primary decision as to whether or not the clearance is terrain-safe.
It's laudable to remind pilots of their ultimate responsibility, and I can imagine that you don't want a pilot reading this thread to think "I don't have to even think about that because ATC is taking care of it". But nor do I want an ATCO reading the thread to think "I don't have to be sure of terrain clearance when issuing a direct routing because the pilot is 'always responsible'".