1 is just silly for a game in my opinion, 2 makes sense but wouldn't change much (and yeah you can see more from a high mountain, but can you realistically make out caves and such), 3 sounds horrendous. 4 - well maps might work, if implemented correctly (and I can easily see problems with it), but telescopes isn't a sensible idea - you can't make maps with telescopes, all you can really do is see in more detail what you can already make out.

1) Hmmm. Just no. I still remember the times when I had to draw my own maps in Ishars and the like, and I am glad these are long gone.

2)This one's good. It might get tiresome, if you spend too much time looking for an abandoned temple in the jungle, but it's nice for realism.

3)That would take a whole lot of time to adjust to... and seems like a bitch to code as well.

It seems you really want to make travelling through the wilderness a challenge, with emphasis on the possibility of getting lost. It reminds me a bit of the 'uneal world' roguelike. Didn't play too much with it, too much novelty in one place.
Personally, I think the wilderness will be challenging enough as it is (I mean, based on ADOM experience.) It needs some additions, of course, but a top to bottom redesign seems like too much.

4) Nice. Maps would be good, but I'd rather they didn't 'reveal' anything, that's what the scrools of magic mapping are for.
For example, you buy a map to a crypt near some town. You 'r'ead it it and see an ASCII representation (can be black and white) of the area around the town with a big X that marks the spot.

Oh, and telescope would be nice if it allowed to 'l'ook at adjacent tiles in search for random encounters. I think REs need to be redone a bit, not just pure random chance to be atacked once you step on a tile, but some active means of getting in and out of trouble.
For example: with high survival you see '?' marks in adjacent tiles if stepping on them will produce a RE. (any kind)
Coupled with a tracking skill, which will tell what you are likely to stumble upon next.

Yes. Could be optional, as not everyone likes this. I agree that since it is a game, this shouldn't get tedious. I don't think it would if the world is interesting and alive.

Consider that we're talking about a medieval-ish fantasy setting here. We modern guys are all very much used to detailed maps, to the point that we take such information for granted. But in the old days most people would have a very different view of the world, based on known landmarks, and they would travel from landmark to landmark.

1) I can see your concerns. And I was conflating the RL player and the character: if you, the player, take a break from a game for three weeks and forget all about the geography, the character shouldn't, as no time has passed for him/her. In that sense, the automapping is the memory of the character. So, perhaps a better alternative to my first proposal is to have only long-unvisited parts of the map fade away.

2)
Yes... that's why strategy would become important: don't travel in mist, avoid dense forest, or if you have to (the temple is in the forest) try to find a map or some directions beforehand, and bring a lot of food.
I suppose not. Small landmarks would only pop into view if close enough. The telescope item would extend that range.

3)
Don't know... haven't tried. But the 'turning world' would be nothing more than a simple reordering of the elements in the geography matrix, not a big deal.

It may sound scarier than it is:
4)
You're right. So that could be their function. Reveal details that are too far otherwise, as well as point out random encounters, as spectre suggested.

Agreed!

I dislike the idea of getting lost in the wilderness and losing map over time. This would logically have to expand to dungeons, which, though already explored and mostly vanquished, would require a player that has left for a while to re-explore (as more time has passed for the player than the PC), but not a player who hasn't, as less time has passed for the player than the PC.

I like the idea of having a harder wilderness, but:

1. Ewww. I think it would be interesting, but that doesn't mean I like it.
2. Yes.
3. Little bit confusing. Interesting, but won't make the game better.
4. Yes.