I heartily disagree with all three of these. Fast Travel [so called] should be entirely a user preference...provided that there are equal risks to traversing the ground. It's tantamount to not paying attention—not caring to be interested. New Vegas was insidious in this, with having crippled legs disable fast traveling—absurd; that is the most probable situation in the game when the player would most want to avail themselves of map-travel. Instead of raising the encounter risk, they had the player hobble along at limping pace to get back to a town with a doctor. The player should never be forced to to give a damn about the distance unless they elect to experience it. Cyan's 'Riven' solved this easily in FPP, where the player could simply click on any visited area in the distance to instantly teleport there. This spared them the tedium of backtracking through countless liminal areas.
The primary concern with map-travel is not whether it should be available (it should always), it is to prevent exploitation of it, like in Oblivion, where the player can quaff a strength potion to carry 1000 pounds of junk from one town to another on the other side of the continent because the game doesn't track spell duration during map travel. An interesting note is that FO3 does track travel time. It takes three hours to walk from Vault 101 to Rivet City—but as far as I can tell, the game does nothing with this information; what a waste.
The —cost— of map travel is inattentiveness, missing out on found treasures, secrets, and new acquaintances from the trip... and that should be their choice to make.
Camping mechanics are sketchy, and usually bad; Pillars Of Eternity's was obscene. Realms of Arkania's was best in class IMO.