This is an interesting debate. I think what we are discussing are maps that are broadly available, such as what is being proposed here (I am using the term "pushed" in contrast to distributing maps discriminately as might be done among cave survey project pariticipants). Similar "push" distributions includes those available in guidebooks (which, as you point out, permission may have been given once, but does not mean it is eternally granted), commercial cave concessions (the Kaemper Map at Mammoth Cave could be used to wander around the cave, but access is obviously controlled), and books ("Caverns of West Virginia," "Caves of Tennessee"). In the former cases, the access situation was overtly considered and deliberate decisions made in consideration of the impacts (landowner, cave sensitivities, etc.). In the latter (books), this was done before it was a dominant consideration.
After your post, I thought of other less considered mechanisms -- grotto newsletters, State Cave Surveys, etc. For the latter, these are theorietically controlled, although the population is vast. Has this caused problems? I suspect so, but not enough for policy change. Grotto newsletters probably had more cave maps in the past than they currently do. Probaby one of the better examples of the impacts of broadly publishing (pushing out) maps is "Caverns of West Virginia" (Davies). I recall a lots of closed caves in the 70s that were among the featured ones in the book (Cass, Hellhole, Schoolhouse, to name three). In these examples, the vast number of people finally wore out our welcome (coupled with a conspicuous rescue or two).
In essence I agree with you -- my position is a bit absolute on this, maybe too much. But, in the threads, the considerations to the owners seemed to be dwarfed by issues of copyright, permissions from the authors (cartographers), etc. I think these are secondary. But I do disagree with one point you make --
What about cave maps 50 yrs old for caves that the current owner has owned for 2-3yrs. Their input into how that map is distributed is essentially zero. Even for "1 owner caves" they generally have little true control once the map is made and almost nobody says that's bad.
Does not matter how old the map is, the current owner's wishes trumps all. Now, you might be saying that the map is long out the door. Indeed. However, this does not create a justification for releasing an old map not yet distributed (just because the owner is a newbie).
A map without location data, I agree, is not useful to the sneaky crowd. That is a good point, but I do think we need to take a default stance of caution (at the least is ensuring that we are acting responsibly and not creating a nuisance, or worse, for the landowner). And for those that already know where the cave is, it probably does not do too much harm, unless the result is over-visitation ("over" is in the eye of the beholder, the owner).
Yes, landowners are often misused to justify bad behaviour (gates, limited participation, secret maps, etc.). I admit that we brought up the idea of the original Roppel entrance gate to the landowner before installing. After all, we wanted to protect his kids and cattle, right? That being said, it is our responsibility to respect the landowner and not cause him/her hardship by overly generating interest in their cave (which in most cases they did not choose to have). And this should and must be the most important consideration whenever thinking about making maps (and/or descriptions) available.
If this is new idea is a place to showcase maps for their own sake, I guess that seems okay. Good maps need to be shown, and the survey teams' and cartographer's efforts acknowledge. But, beyond that, we have to be super careful.