How is that a geojson problem? If your dataset is correct, adjacent borders will just use the same points and will match exactly.

▲

sdenton4 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem is simplification. Suppose two regions share a border with some nonlinear points a, b, c, d. Simplifying the polygon for the first region might yield a, b, d while the second yield a, c, d. This creates gaps or overlaps between the two regions.

▲

echoangle 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

So don’t simplify the shapes on their own. Geojson is a storage and exchange format, you can still convert it to other formats if you want to modify it.

▲

qurren 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

But what is the border? Set the border to what it actually is, not a simplification of it. The state of Colorado is formally a 697 sided polygon, don't simplify it to a rectangle.

▲

tomrod 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is not what OP is describing. It is very common to simplify objects for decreasing boundary objects by orders of magnitude. GeoJSON is missing correlation when you do that. Simplifying country objects from a GeoJSON source could lead to a gap between the country borders. So you either have poor representation or a longer pipeline to convert objects to an amenable object set. It also breaks idempotency in some regards.

	▲	echoangle a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		To do the simplification, you detect shared borders, simplify and generate polygons again. That doesn’t make topojson inherently superior. You can convert back and forth and for many applications geojson is easier to process.