Why do we find maps so appealing? If you don't understand the question -- if you're not jealous of my tatty 1940s Auckland water chart sporting an old-school "Frith" of Thames -- then I'm sorry. Clearly you've never known the relief of hiding your pink childhood bedroom under ceiling-to-floor National Geographic maps.
Cartographers create a map of the Empire which is the size of the Empire in Jorge Luis Borges' parable On Exactitude in Science. But whereas Borges emphasises the useless, impossible aim of absolute accuracy, and the arrogance of wanting to record everything for posterity in 1:1 ratio, most maps are near-featureless.
...a globe is "a cosmographical object for contemplation ... a prosthetic limb for dreaming...
By including only a few elements instead of an infinity, maps make the world literally graspable. The map is not the territory. Territory is too messy to get our heads around, whereas maps are reassuringly, rather misleadingly, precise.
It's interesting what we take for granted in a map. Debates about easy-to-read Mercator rectangles versus more accurate orange-peel-shaped flattened globes (that don't flatter the size of the rich North) are well known. But nearly all of these two-dimensional global representations are land chauvinists. To make a round globe into a flat picture, it must be split, and usually, the land isn't cut, the sea is. (Google the aptly-named "Athelstan Spilhaus" to see the reverse -- he reduced the land to a torn frame holding the oceans all spilling into each other.)