road was abandoned as provided in section 228.190.1. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law because the nonuse provision of section 228.190.1 is not applicable to land voluntarily conveyed to a county to be used for a road. Because there is no evidence demonstrating how the road traversing Tract A became a public road, it is impossible to determine whether the evidence presented by Plaintiffs was sufficient to determine how the road could be vacated or abandoned. Defendants’ argument is premised on a line of cases that holds that the abandonment provision of section 228.190.1 is not applicable to roads built on land that was conveyed voluntarily to a county for road purposes. See, e.g., Coffey v. State ex rel. County of Stone, 893 S.W.2d 843, 848 (Mo.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Kleeman v. Kingsley, 167 S.W.3d 198, 203
holding that mere use of a road will not make a road a public road even though such use is with the knowledge and consent of the landowner unless the use is accompanied by  recognition by public authority or by its maintainance sic holding road was still a public highway although fifty years had passed since the road was used by the public holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county holding that once the automatic stay is lifted the property ceases to be property of the estate and there is no longer any power of abandonment 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