Re: To Have a Campaign Map or not?
There's two different questions here. First (and the one that's mostly been addressed): do you let the players have a map? Second: do you the GM bother to make an accurate map of the relevant parts of your game-world?
From my perspective (which is heavily Simulationist), the answer to the first question depends on whether it makes sense in your world for maps to be available and accessible by the PCs, and whether the PCs have the skills necessary to read and use them.
The answer to the second ... well ... a Simulationist almost requires that the alternate reality of the game-world have its important features mapped out. Otherwise, how can you hope to answer questions about your game-world "correctly"? You're going to make up something on the fly, and you'll have terrible inconsistency/contradiction problems down the line.
OTOH, other viewpoints don't have anything like my priority on consistency, and consider maps to be an annoyance that get in the way of the story. The materials in Seventh Sea were clearly published with this attitude.
In a certain sense, the decision to do without maps means that everything goes at the speed of plot. That means that if you get your players into a race condition ("We have to get to the old desecrated altar at Black Marsh before Khargath does, or he'll complete the ritual to bring demons into the world!") the decision of whether the players win that race depends purely on the GM. To a certain extent, then, nothing the players do can affect whether they succeed or not ... that most-accursed fate of canned linear adventures. You might be happy with this, but there are types of players who are driven to frustrated distraction by it and will call you a railroad engineer.