You just dont get it. Today globe maps work perfectly with all compass based instruments. Look for explanation for "RHUMBLINE" to get example how compass would work on flat earth. That is the main thing. COMPASS and how to read it.
Rhumb lines are based on an angle with the meridian lines, which radiate from the geographic North Pole. Magnetic North is not dependent on geographic North, so rhumb lines have nothing to do with compasses.
Im tired. Do you have any idea how hard is it to make a map from start. How many people, how much money, not to mention how many working hours. At least few years and that is for professionals.
All those professionals, the many people with notable funding who poured their time into mapping the world, the people who took the initiative "to make a map from start", all agree the earth is round. All our marvelously accurate maps are dependent on that assumption. Only those that don't understand the maps or obvious clues about Earth's shape have a hard time accepting it.
GPS is also based on compass positions and distances (globe model) and so not suitable.
GPS is not based on magnetic North, but because the satellites orbit Earth, they're not suitable. Because GPS's very existence defies FEF.
I just don't get how you can't understand that maps that have different position of North and South can never be comparable. That also count for GPS, positions and courses.
They are comparable. If you measure in degrees longitude and latitude, and measure the map with these rather than just visual space, technically every map is accurate as long as they stay true to the true long/lat of the locations on it. The position of North and South really doesn't matter if you're reading the map right, it's just that some maps are easier to read than others. For example, polar azimuthal projections are more accurate at their respective poles, Mercator is more accurate at the equator, and a globe is more accurate everywhere.
If I can see an island 150 miles away no mirage or such crap can convince me that curvature is what they say it is.
That statement is perfectly reasonable, but it's conditional on being able to see an island 150 miles away, presumably from the surface. Seeing as that's not really true anywhere, why does it matter, and why question that curvature blocks your line of sight?
You've justified your belief in a flat Earth only with declaring your lack of understanding of its shape, passing the task off on the "professionals" who
do know what they're doing and
do believe the world is spherical. You've failed to provide an accurate FE map made by experts. You've failed to give those non-existent Flat-Earth-theorizing cartographers an excuse. You've failed to even show globes to be inaccurate maps, so you're on the fast track to nowhere here.