Does the majority's conclusion that sufficient evidence did not establish use of the peak trail violate the fundamental substantial evidence rule?

The majority's conclusion that sufficient evidence did not establish use of the peak trail also violates the fundamental substantial evidence rule. When an appellant attacks a court's finding as not sustained by the evidence, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the verdict. Questions of credibility must be resolved in favor of the factfinder's determination, and when two or more inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, a reviewing court may not substitute its deductions for those of the trier of fact. If on any material point the evidence is in conflict, it must be assumed that the court ... resolved the conflict in favor of the prevailing party. (Abar v. Rogers, supra, 23 Cal.App.3d at p. 510, 100 Cal.Rptr. 344.) By analogy, where the law of implied dedication would only require proof that for the prescriptive period various sandlot baseball games occurred regularly and frequently on private property, the majority seemingly requires proof of team rosters (with a full team of at least nine players on each side), uniform colors, and evidence of games year-round with no off-season and no rainouts.