Mapping forms and deposits, and inferring processes, of a landscape is avery complex exercise (Demek,1982). Its diculty lies, on the one hand, inthe challenge of identifying the processes themselves, their spatial andtemporal extent (including the magnitude of activity) and the underlyingbase rocks (both in the eld and through desk based analysis) and, on theother hand, the implementation of e ective cartographic representation.General geomorphological maps are often driven by the need to understandthe evolution of a portion of the landscape and a need to forecast futureevolutionary trends. They have thus become a major research instrumentin their own right (Hayden,1986). Applied geomorphological mapping hasto consider the evolution of the area under investigation, even if the speci cobjectives are more limited.The cartographic representation of geomorphological information posessome distinct challenges. To improve readability of geomorphological mapsone approach is to reduce the complexity of the cartographic elementsfavouring a \question-driven" approach, representing fewer processes at atime on the same map (e.g.Savigear,1965;St-Onge, D. A.,1968). In thisway the map is more readable for the user and the fundamental needs ofimproving land planning can be easily and more eciently passed on toland managers. This issue also relates to the need for an increasedinterdisciplinary dialogue between geomorphologists and other professionals(Grith and Hearn,1990).Another approach is the adoption of recent digital analysis and visualizationtechniques. Increased computer power (both hardware and software) not