and cables had been erected across the road does not necessarily indicate that the road had been abandoned when, as in this case, the evidence indicates that the road had continued to be used by those who desired to do so. See Powell v. Hopkins, 288 Ala. 466, 472, 262 So.2d 289, 294 (1972) (“[Placing a gap or gate across a way to control livestock would not cause a road to lose its character as a public way when it was evident that by placing such obstacle there was no interruption of the way by those traveling it.”). Even if the gates and cables had succeeded in blocking public use of the road, we cannot conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence indicating that those gates and cables had been in existence for 20 years. See Smith v. Smith, 482 So.2d 1172, 1175 (Ala.1985) (<HOLDING>). The Darnalls point out that the county had
holding impediment to traveling the road at issue must have existed for 20 years to support claim of abandonment holding road was still a public highway although fifty years had passed since the road was used by the public holding that a subsequent abandonment of a public rightofway over such a road has no effect on a private easement owned by an abutting landowner holding that a bia road was a tribal road by considering the nature of the rightofway at issue and finding that although the tribe had relinquished certain gatekeeping rights by allowing public use of the road and collaborating with the bia in maintaining it the tribe had maintained other significant gatekeeping rights because the rightofway was not granted to the state and the road did not form any part of the states highway system holding that the abandonment provision of section 228190 is inapplicable when property is conveyed voluntarily to a county to be used as a public road