Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AGeoP-21
National mapping, geodetic and hydrographic agencies producing or exchanging geospatial information, maps and charts for NATO forces
AGeoP-21 is NATO's Allied Geographic Publication fixing WGS 84 as the standard geodetic datum, plus the preferred projections, grids and MGRS position reporting for NATO geospatial information, agreed by nations under STANAG 2211.
AGeoP-21 is the NATO Allied Geographic Publication that fixes the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) "as the standard geodetic system for geospatial information used by NATO", and sets out how datums, coordinates, projections, grids and position reporting are applied across NATO's geospatial information. Nations record their agreement to use it in STANAG 2211; AGeoP-21 itself supplies the technical detail. Participating nations agree to a second aim too: "Reduce the number of regional datums and coordinate systems, whenever possible, during revision or recompilation of maps, charts, geodetic data and products for NATO." The publication does not address a supplier or contractor directly at any point: its own terms run to "participating nations", and in practice to the national geographic, geodetic and hydrographic agencies that produce and exchange geospatial information under NATO tasking. Edition A Version 1 was promulgated in February 2016; the document does not state what edition it superseded, and Germany, France, Latvia and Turkey have each filed specific reservations against parts of it.
Geospatial information is referenced to the WGS 84 horizontal and vertical datums "where possible, unless an exception is specified below or a local datum has been designated in accordance with BI-SC Directive 80-4". With the exception of raster, it uses geographic coordinates (latitude, longitude) on the WGS 84 ellipsoid, in decimal degrees; raster data is instead stored in the projected coordinate system intended for its display and use, provided it is based on WGS 84 or an equivalent datum: "This will prevent distortion, improve performance and reduce storage space." Where the preferred coordinate system cannot be adopted, local geodetic datums, ellipsoids, projections and grids "within the NATO area of responsibility (NAOR) will conform to BI-SC Directive 80-4" rather than to AGeoP-21 itself.
No single map projection suits every use, so AGeoP-21 sets a preferred one per domain: UTM for NATO land use; Mercator for dynamic displays needing conformal coverage at any scale short of the poles, and for maritime charts smaller than 1:50,000; Lambert Conformal Conic and Polar Stereographic for higher latitudes and polar coverage; and, for aeronautical charts at 1:500,000 and smaller, Mercator, Lambert Conformal Conic and Polar Stereographic together, arranged in equal bands of latitude. Aeronautical charts in digital form use the Arc-second Raster Chart/map (ARC) system defined by the Defence Geospatial Information Working Group.
The preferred grid is UTM, developed for worldwide use between 80S and 84N; other grids still in use within the NAOR include the British National Grid, the Irish Grid, and the Nord/Sud grids covering Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, each tied to its own historical ellipsoid. The graticule of latitude and longitude "shall be portrayed on all maps and charts which are used by the NATO Armed Forces", and GEOREF "shall be shown on all aeronautical charts which are used by the NATO Armed Forces". MGRS, built on WGS 84 and UTM, "is the preferred method for position reporting by NATO ground units and ground combat operational forces", and is depicted on aeronautical charts at 1:250,000; where MGRS cannot be used, the local grid reference system applies until WGS 84 and MGRS become available in the area.
The Global Area Reference System (GARS) is carved out deliberately. It is described as "primarily an operational-level, administrative measure" for battle-space deconfliction, and it "shall not be used to define geographic locations, nor shall it be used in a system that requires precise position data" such as weapon systems. Members are also "not be bound to conform to this agreement in respect of maps and charts produced for mission specific, non-standard datasets".
WGS 84 offers two vertical reference surfaces: the ellipsoid, and an Earth Gravitational Model (EGM) derived geoid. Outside hydrographic use, the geoid "is the preferred vertical reference to replace local and regional mean sea level datums for geospatial information", built from the most recent EGM current at publication. Hydrographic charts are the documented exception: they relate depths to a Chart Datum defined for safe navigation, and AGeoP-21 says plainly that "it is not possible to adopt a WGS 84 EGM derived vertical datum for normal hydrographic applications because the CD/WGS 84 EGM relationship cannot be modeled with sufficient accuracy". Hydrographic agencies are instead directed to model and record the relationship between chart datum and WGS 84 for specialised applications.
Where information referenced to another datum stays in operational use alongside WGS 84 data in the same area, transformation parameters must be provided, in the note format set by STANAG 3676 for land maps, aeronautical charts and photomaps, and by IHO Special Publication No. 60 for nautical charts. The seven-parameter Helmert (position vector) transformation "shall be applied as the preferred method wherever possible"; a reduced three-parameter Molodenski solution may be used where too few control stations exist for a full seven-parameter fit, but AGeoP-21 warns the parameters from the two methods "must NEVER be used" interchangeably, "as large errors may result". A third method, Multiple Regression Equation transformation, models local distortion with polynomial functions and is "only defined for the specific regions" it was derived for, and "should therefore never be applied outside of these regions". Because transformation itself adds inaccuracy on top of whatever error the original coordinates carried, AGeoP-21 recommends avoiding it "whenever possible, but especially when high accuracy is required such as for targeting", and recommends applying these transformation methods "only to horizontal coordinates", with vertical transformation handled separately.
AGeoP-21 names no certification body, notified body or audit scheme, and describes no organisation being assessed against it. Where it does set a bar for a technical decision, it routes the choice to a named authority rather than an assessor: selecting a transformation method "must be the responsibility of the NATO Chief Geo Officer in charge", and for higher-accuracy vertical work the document says: "Consult your NATO Geo Officer in charge with questions." Compliance is otherwise a property of the national production process, and of whatever reservation a nation has filed against STANAG 2211, not of AGeoP-21 itself.
AGeoP-21 is published by NATO and listed in the NATO Standardization Document Database. NATO's documents are not sold by ComplyTrain and we host no copies of them.
AGeoP-21 is an operational and technical standard, not a management system: the actual work of choosing and applying the right datum, projection, grid and transformation method happens in geodetic and mapping production, not in software. ComplyTrain helps by giving an organisation a place to hold and control the procedure that tells producers which reference frame and grid a given product line uses and why, the training record showing staff have been shown AGeoP-21's preferred conventions and where a national exception applies instead, and the evidence - a signed-off production procedure, a training log, a corrective action when a product is found referenced to the wrong datum - that a customer or a national geo authority would ask to see.
ComplyTrain does not compute a datum transformation, select or apply a map projection, or survey and produce geospatial data. That work is done by qualified geodesists, surveyors and production agencies, consulting the NATO Chief Geo Officer in charge where AGeoP-21 itself says to.
Which conventions a given contract actually calls for, and what else STANAG 2211 brings with it, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by this page. See the standards explorer for what sits alongside AGeoP-21, and talk to us about the evidence trail behind it.
Tell us how you need to work with AGeoP-21 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
Not by itself. Nations commit to it by ratifying STANAG 2211, and a nation can ratify with reservations, as Germany, France, Latvia and Turkey already have. Whether a given contractor has to build a product to AGeoP-21's conventions comes down to what the relevant contract or tasking requires, not the existence of the publication.
STANAG 2211 is the agreement: the record of nations agreeing to use AGeoP-21. AGeoP-21 is the Allied Publication that actually contains the geodetic datum, projection, grid and transformation requirements.
The Military Grid Reference System is the method AGeoP-21 sets as preferred for position reporting by NATO ground units and ground combat operational forces, built on WGS 84 and the UTM grid. It is separate from GARS, a coarser administrative reference AGeoP-21 says must not be used to define precise locations.
No such certification exists. AGeoP-21 names no certification body, notified body or accredited scheme; where it sets a technical bar, it routes the decision to the NATO Chief Geo Officer in charge, not to an auditor.
From the NATO Standardization Document Database, which lists it. NATO's documents are not sold by ComplyTrain and we do not host copies of them.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.