The grammar of the given examples is not wrong, but the examples should be phrased more clearly and specifically. I'll comment further on that, after addressing your question about the necessity of a relationship between "table" and "it" in example 1, "The table has a map on it."
You said that "it" in "on it" refers to "the table". Because you explicitly told us, the relationship is a necessary condition. If you had not made the relationship explicit, then the matter could be context dependent rather than necessary, as for the pair of sentences: "This data table will answer your question on the subject of geographic distribution of cows. The table has a map on it." Here, "on it" means "on the subject of..." rather than "on the table".
The example sentences are somewhat ambiguous. For example 1, depending on exact meaning, in spoken English I'd expect to hear sentences like the following: "The map's on the table." "The tabletop isn't clear, there's a map lying on it." "The map is printed on that table top." etc.
For examples 2 and 3, it isn't clear whether "in the country" means rural (non-urban) vs. within the boundaries of some nation. This can be made clear by naming the nation or country, instead of referring vaguely to "the country." For example: "Rome had colonies in Brittania. England had colonies in North America."