I know there are multi planetar maps, like space travel or multiverse and such. But here I focus on the classics.

Edit: I may wrote my intentions wrong here, I mean for the overall setting's size in general.

I use all of those in my games. I don't have a preference, just use the map/maps needed the time I need it.

Quote from kayakingpoodle >>

I use all of those in my games. I don't have a preference, just use the map/maps needed the time I need it.

 Yeah, I know. Like in a world map, you'll have regional maps and city maps. But I am asking for the whole setting overall, like what is the size of the setting that you prefer.

As big as is needed for the campaign, I guess. Sometimes that’s a globe-trotting adventure, sometimes you never leave the city you start in. 

I will say, as a DM, I like to make a world map, even if I know most of it won’t ever be used. And in my current group, we’ve played probably half a dozen campaigns in the same world, each of them has been in a different region, and we flesh them out as we go. So an area that in campaign 1 was like, “that’s kind of a mountain area” when we played in it in campaign 4 or 5 or so, it developed towns and forests and such.

In that light, it really depends on the game.

A one shot may be a single building/dungeon, and adventure a region..... 

I don't really have a favorite per se, but I do like games that would need all of them like a years long campaign made up of multiple adventures across many settings.

Sorry my preference doesn't fit your question, and that I didn't realize it until your last post. I will say I like detailed maps, which tend to be of smaller areas if that helps?

Yeah, like the others, I have no specific size. It just depends on the nature of the game. For example:

For a one-shot I did from Candlekeep, the bulk of the game took place in what was probably 500 sq. m.

For when I do Light of Xaryxes, it's going to be light years across (presumably).

It needs to be big enough to contain all the action without making me feel confined, while not being much bigger at all. Every minute you spend developing content on the other side of the world I'll never interact with is a minute you're not spending developing the content that I will be interacting with. Broad brush strokes are fine (and can help develop the stuff I will interact with), but behind that... it's detracting from the stuff that is getting used.

I play with regional maps. Like, say you're in Madripore. You can see the the bay (Madripore is a trade port), the islands to the west right on the edge of the map, and to the east you'll have plains dotted by villages. But other cities will be off-map, 'this way to Ul'haq, that way to Æhrengrad' and so on. This gives me a lot of leeway around the lands in between, distances and traveltime, and so on. Also it helps make the world in question feel unexplored: You literally don't know what's there.

In terms of size, that might mean a week or two of overland travel through rough terrain without roads. Whatever that means, a few hundred miles.

I think some are missing the OP’s intentions, or I am. I read it as, if you were buying a boxed set campaign setting do you prefer it to be one of those categories. I prefer continental 

I like and use all of the maps possible.

If a character really wants to have real power they need someplace to conquer.

Any character of fame will find rivals who want to knock them down just because they do not want any competition.

Why not all of them? Every map, yesssss, all the maps in the whole wide world . . . . . .