Well, you are partially right. There is no FE map, because there is no FE and thus all maps of this Earth have been RE Maps.
There is no FE map because by the time humanity had advanced to the point of being capable to go sailing it generally accepted RET, and in the modern day and age I would seriously love for you to pitch a remotely feasible way for someone to map the entire Earth given that they wouldn't trust the existing map. There is no FE map because it is and remains a stupid thing to ask for, on par with the FEer's "Have you personally been to space?"
No. Humanity has been able to understand a FE for quite some time. It doesn't requite any special skills.
The whole idea of making it non-Euclidean is to make it match a round Earth so they wouldn't even need a new map.
They can make a map the same way those supporting a RE did. They didn't have a map when they were making it.
It is only a stupid thing to ask for because Earth has already been mapped and it isn't flat.
Yes, and it still has massive problems as pointed out before.
One such example is that you should be able to see the same sun in multiple locations, and it still doesn't explain sunsets.
Not getting into this again. Your massive problems were a refusal to accept scientific fact. The former claim there doesn't follow, the latter has no reason to be the case. If you wanted to be incredibly basic, you can create a mapping from RET's Minkowski space to some non-Euclidean space where the Earth is contorted to be a disc. Create a metric from hopping back over to RET and using the regular, and there you go, a non-Euclidean model where everything is exactly as we observe it.
No. My "massive problem" was a refusal to accept a baseless claim which reality contradicts. If you wish to assert it as a fact you need to be able to justify it, and no, linking to other places which just repeat the baseless claim is not a justification. So no, it isn't a scientific fact.
If light follows geodesics (at least what I can gather a geodesic is which goes against your definition), which as far as I can tell, follow the curvature of space (especially as that is what you want to claim as an equivalent of a straight line and thus the equivalent (or part thereof) of a flat surface), then light would follow the curve of Earth/space.
Then similar to how 2 geodesics can intersect twice, you would be able to see the sun twice.
In this kind of space (to try and make the round Earth flat), light parallel to the surface of Earth would follow the curve of Earth. If it is aimed straight up, it would go straight up. If it is at a slight angle then it would go around Earth proceeding outwards in a spiral.
This means if the sun was directly overhead (as an example), you would be able to look straight up and see the sun. You could also look at an angle offset from straight up, where the light circles around (inward from he sun) and still meets your eye.
As the sun approached the horizon (or 0 degree angle of elevation), you would end up with numerous suns as a massive streak.
The sun would NEVER go below 0 degree angle of elevation.
And no, you can't just map it back and forth as light would follow a fundamentally different path. The only way to do that is appeal to the time axis, but that would significantly effect gravity. If it is capable of throwing light off the surface of Earth rather than having it follow the curvature of space, then it would be even better at throwing us much slower moving objects off the surface.
A simple example, consider the path of light over the surface of a sphere and mapping that back to flat space.
You can start at the north pole, go down to the equator, turn 90 degrees, go along the equator as long as you like, then turn 90 degrees and go back to the north pole.
By centring your transform on the north pole, you would be able to make 2 of these lines straight in flat space, but the third would be curved.
In flat space, light would not follow that curve, but in spherical space, it would.
So no, you can't just ignore the curvature and pretend space is flat to determine how light would travel.
If you have to do that, that would mean space is flat.
The only actual attempts at maps I've seen have been Sandokhan's odd thing, a few of the more conspiracy minded believe the UN logo is 100% accurate rather than just a convenient placeholder, and that's pretty much it. I think Intikam was working on one, but I don't think it went anywhere. more often it's REers pushing for FEers to provide a map, until the FEer snaps and just gives a projection they like without actually believing it's meant to be accurate.
So you don't like Tom Bishop's attempt?
Sure, he doesn't start from scratch and instead tries to manipulate existing maps of Earth, but he tries claiming it is accurate.
Regardless, it isn't just the map, it is the model the map is based upon which doesn't work.
As for never going anywhere, yes, that is typically the case when you are dishonestly trying to manipulate reality to try and make it match a FE.
He tries, but fails, repeatedly with seriously flawed methods, sometimes just outright discarding data that doesn't match the model he wants.
Really? I would claim that pretending that the earth is flat, yet having no idea what the basic layout might be it totally ridiculous.
And still it's less ridiculous than expecting people to map out the entire world, even to just a rough continental layout. How would you do that?
Just like the people of the past did.
A simple way would be to start measuring bearings to numerous points and start making connected triangles from them.
Except I'm pretty sure Davis has been talking about retiring the Wiki so I doubt that's even meant to be a representative answer, and 'laid out' doesn't mean much more than 'North Pole in the centre,' and even that's contested. And in the forum's FAQ, that map gets prefaced by "Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth."
What I'm regarded as weak are these arguments that REers make. This whole map kerfuffle is beyond silly. It's possible to argue for the correct point of view poorly, and honestly I think RET has enough in support of it that you don't have to defend it with stupidity.
Again, it isn't just the map, it is that their model is fundamentally flawed and makes no sense at all.
You can try to have that model match various locations, but then other parts completely fail.
The non-Euclidean Earth is Davis' model, all I ever do is quote what FEers say, when talking about FET, sometimes with a bit more thought into it if it's a topic i like. Davis proposed the notion. If providing FE answers confuses you, I don't really know what to say.
The issue is that they are not answers. They are pathetic excuses to avoid answers. His arguments supporting it are also blatantly wrong.