I'm genuinely disappointed you haven't responded, because you clearly think deeply about interaction design, as evidenced by your analysis of this click-wheel map interface. You just don't seem to have tried to understand the rant or my replies to you at all—you definitely haven't read the links in my first reply to you.
fixed manipulation points ... haptic interfaces [are often] inferior and frustrating ... There are no obvious integer set-points to allow a haptic interface to lock on to
This is exactly the kind of thing that the author of the rant called "haptic gimmicks", and is nothing like what the author favors over touchscreens. The author is talking about a dynamic physical interface, like this: https://rsnous.com/posts/notes-from-dynamicland-geokit/
For a map, not only is there an arbitrary XY coordinate that you want, but you can literally put your finger on it, so it lets you just place the selector there. Zooming should be continuous, so the dial has no click-points. "Flying" "down" or "up" (aka zooming in or out) feels like physical motion, with momentum, so the dial has a slight physical heft, and spins with some momentum.
But of course you wouldn't want to use this dial for everything, just like you've explained with such clarity as to why you wouldn't want to use a click-wheel for everything. That's why this interface is literally made of paper—building a different interface for a different application is as easy as literally cutting and pasting.