While I agree that does sound petty to be banned over, there is no evidence that this is a retred. There is a million different things they could do that would be far less lazy than other open world games that use cookie cutter map designs to create their "new" worlds with. Any claims of such when we know so little about what to come can easily be viewed as downplay, be it your intention or not.
Now if it was the exact same map with minimal changes and plays the exact same way, yeah that would be lazy. I highly doubt that will be the case however based on the fact that Nintendo has historically avoided these practices.
I like the idea of an open world that reuses the same landscape
But only under the condition that its clear to see how time has changed in the world. Cities grow or got destroyed. Maybe a volcane erupted. The desert claimed more land. Forests got cut down. Stuff got rebuilt, people resettled. There are so many changes you could show and still use the exact same geography.
Thinking about it I would love to see an open world game series where each sequel takes place in a time different enough to be noticable.
Kinda of what Fortnite does but by playing the old games in the series you can go back to the old times. In Fortnite the old map is discarded after the update and never revisitable.