How about this idea. Since it is quite wide to be considered a road, and its main use is for storing railroad ties, not pedestrian or vehicle passage, what if we map it as an area there rather than a highway and set access=private? With that, renderers will not draw something there that looks like a path.

See, for the same reason that you expect that somebody might add back a service road segment based on aerial imagery, I am concerned that if we leave a service road there, regardless of its access tag, somebody will connect it across the railroad track based on satellite imagery. If the gravel yard is mapped as an area, future mappers looking at aerial imagery would be less likely to add in a highway.

What do you think?

That is a gravel area used every few years for parking vehicles and temporary storage of railroad ties and other parts for railroad track maintenance projects. It is debatable whether that is a service road or a storage yard. I'm not sure that we need to make that determination.

Since it is not a public space, and there is a real potential for serious public harm by mapping it is a service road, I ask that you please do not add back a service road feature.

Yes, but, there IS no crossing. There are two trails that end on either side of a railroad track. The track is raised on a bed of rock 1 to 2 meters above the trail on either side.

People climb up and over the railroad tracks, but that is not a crossing. It is an artifact of poor city planning that two trails end on either side of the track that, if there was a crossing, would make a convenient continuous trail. But there is no crossing.

Your change looks good to me. Thanks.

Comment should say: stop signs and stop lines.