## 3 Results and Discussion  
Geomorphological maps should exhaustively represent the landscape of an area. The symbols traditionally used cannot always reach this goal. This issue is particularly remarkable for the areas characterized by a complex morphological framework, like those involved by DSGSD. Figure 8: The Balma example. (**A**) Traditional geomorphological map (TGM) at the Balma village (modified from [17]). (**B**) Schematic cross-section, related to object-based method (OBM), of the Balma trench, with the subdivision of morpho-structures in polygons (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, etc.) represented by continuous red lines. The buried morpho-structures are reported as dotted red lines, with arrows indicating the movement direction. (**C**) Attribute table with indication of the sixteen polygons 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, etc. represented in the OBM. The traditional geomorphological map (TGM) carried out in these areas generally implies only a representation of the upper edge of a gravitational morpho-structure (i.e., the upper edge of minor scarp and detachment niche) or its axis (i.e., the depression of doubled ridge and trench), instead of the entire surface affected by the structure. Consequently, TGM does not represent the entire framework of the slope, for a series of reasons:  
* A linear symbol cannot represent the entire sector affected by a morpho-structure nor specify its areal size;
* Very close-together morpho-structures usually cannot be reported, if not using a proper detailed mapping scale;
* The relationships between the different geomorphological elements cannot always be represented, except when linear symbols intersect each other. These reasons for TGM inadequacy are well-evident in the two investigated examples, where very dense gravitational morpho-structures result in difficulties related to choosing which structure to report. In detail, the Cavallo Bianco upper western slope TGM implies a symbolic representation, only mapping the axis of doubled ridges (namely, the central depressions) (Figure 6A). The traditional mapping of these morpho-structures, despite providing information on their length, does not show the overall areal size, the encompassing of various elements (scarps, depressions and counterscarps) and their relationships. Moreover, this framework doesn't allow for a representation of the magnitude and complexity of the gravitational deformation. The full set of geomorphological elements of this slope are instead well-distinguished in OBM in a GIS environment and simplified by cross section (Figure 6B), where different scarps, depressions and counterscarps are distinguished within the doubled ridges (polygons 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d in Figure 6C); relationships between the different morpho-structures are also evaluable. Moreover, the mapping of the upper edge of the significant minor scarp in the Cavallo Bianco upper eastern slope (Figure 6A) in TGM doesn't depict its significant areal extension. This mapping also does not offer the possibility of evaluating the relationships of the reported trench and counterscarp with the main scarp, because their symbols don't intersect each other. The use of OBM (Figure 6B), highlighted by cross section, instead solves the issue by allowing the representation of the various landforms and the relative chronology through the indication of scarp and counterscarp (2c and 2d in Figure 6C) that have dissected the significant minor scarp (2a and 2b in Figure 6C). A second example of improvement to geomorphological cartography is in reference to the Balma site. The TGM, in this case, also implies (Figure 8A) a symbolic representation of morpho-structures, only mapping the upper edge of scarps and counterscarps and the trench axis, not paying particular attention to their relationships. On the contrary, OBM and relative cross-sections (Figure 8B) depict well the complex framework of slope (i.e., 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g, 2h, 2i in Figure 8C). Therefore, some general considerations can be proposed through study of the two case studies.