is it better always having a map for the characters or just describing or both

Depends entirely on the group and the situation. I love a good map and try to either have preprinted maps or just a white board with some scribbles on for every combat but if my players do somethinf unexpected it's often easier to use theatre of the mind and just describe what's happening. Likewise there's lots of very successful live plays like Critical Role and Dimension20 who have big elaborate minis for their combats but even those will sometimes just narrate an unexpected combat and there are other live plays on Youtube and Twitch who never use any maps on any kind

I like to have both a map and describe the environment.

Greetings SirFalafel,

Are you talking about "always" having a map meaning, they are 'always' on a map during the whole game, or just for Battles?

I ask because I recently played in a session where the DM created a Map for everything, even simple roads that the players were traveling down.

For me though, I will always have a Map ready for any possible Battle, even if the players avoid it.
For me it's better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
Outside of Combat, it is all Theater of the Mind.

Cheers!

Both as player and DM i usually prefer combats on battlemap but i don't mind Theater of the Mind for simple encounters without complex environment or enemies.

I usually like a map but my players in my current game generally prefer theater of the mind. 

I have a map for every combat where the room is reasonably sized. If the party is fighting in the middle of a field or a HUGE room, I use a blank sheet of paper that I printed a grid on.

I just think maps are cool. I like the artwork and I like that they provide a bunch of stuff you can interact with without me having to list it all and the players having to remember it all.

thanks