The VOR isn't missing, just the rose. The VOR itself is indicated by the cutout dot in the middle of the aerodrome symbol for the COE airport. That IS explained in the legend attached to the paper chart (or the raw geotiff files from NACO) if you have them.
I thought Ron covered it.
It's quite clear on the Low Level Enroute IFR chart that it's a VOR/DME...
And the legend Ron was referring to...
Note a compass rose isn't depicted on the VFR legend anywhere...
Here's a fun one from the IFR Low Enroute Legend...
What is an MEA and what does it provide?
"Minimum En Route Altitude (MEA) is defined as the published minimum altitude ASL between specified fixes on airways and air routes which ensures acceptable navigational signal coverage and which meets the IFR obstacle clearance requirements."
That's the textbook answer, of course. But then there is the MRA... And it's published when the MEA is lower than the crossing VOR radial can be used to identify the intersection. Okay, no problem.
But... You just thought you were assured acceptable navigation signal coverage. The chart folks say, no...
Check out the legend for the IFR Low Enroute chart...
"MEA GAP". Never heard of it before. Have you?
Wasn't on any tests, wasn't mentioned by anyone. But it's there.
"MEA is established with a gap in navigation signal coverage."
The definition of MEA says nay-nay, acceptable navigation signal coverage is required.
The question is... is there a real MEA GAP published on a chart anywhere? I haven't found one yet.
If not, why is it on the legend? Keeping their options open to contradict themselves?
Fun, huh?
And of course, there was another PoA thread on it a while back, after a search, with no definitive conclusion as to why an MEA GAP would be used over raising the MEA other than speculation that it was to supposedly be nice to folks with aircraft that couldn't climb that high...
Although if there's no way to navigate there, you're assuming a GPS or other RNAV system, so it's still effectively gone for VOR only aircraft and nothing published to show how high one would have to be to receive the Navaid(s).
Here's that segment between FFU and PUC mentioned in the other PoA thread. Note the IFR Low Enroute has the MEA GAP note...
But no problem noted at all on the VFR chart...
We can maybe assume that the Airway is receivable somewhere below the High Altitude chart, above the MEA, because completely unusable VOR signals on a segment are charted this way...
That blue number on the airway ending in "G" is a GNSS/RNAV MEA.
Wouldn't the FFU to PUC make more sense with a low GNSS/RNAV MEA, and higher standard (VOR) printed in black right above the blue RNAV one?