Respectfully I am going to solidly disagree with you here on multiple grounds. 

Primarily and most inarguably - these types of forest roads are exactly what Track tag defines.  Full stop end of story. 
If you think otherwise you're just incorrect. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=track
Please note an APPROPRIATE use of track is explicitly defined as:
"A forest road used for outdoor recreation, logging, or other forestry purposes (aka, forest track, woods road, logging road)"

Second, and backing that up, this is widely universally the practice all over this area as well as most of OSM.  If you want me to revert this then we'd have to start wholesale editing of every single land area / parcel in the area if not the US.  You are welcome to look at all the parcels in this area as well as greater Massachusetts etc. etc.  All the state and town forests, 3rd party conservation parcles like Trustees or Greenbelt...  This is always how it is handled unless there's an oversight i.e. someone misses the proper tagging. 

Third - lets talk about this specific case. You want to revert what you call Wood Lane "outer section".  Well again then you need to change the long pre-existing tags for the rest of Wood Lane because "IRL" on the ground that is ALL one consistent forest road "used for recreation and land access" (for sure if there was a rescue or fire control incident in the woods one of the gates will get opened and they'll drive right in).  There is virtually no difference in the nature of the road past that point, because in fact it was all one true road before 1947 or so when the highway was built and they disconnected and abandoned so many of the crossing roads all up and down that section of 128. Again all those roads (ex: Branch Lane in the same parcel, Forest Lane down around Haskell Pond) would ALL have to be changed. But they should not be because it is a correct tagging description of the nature of the path on the ground.  

Fourth - The unnamed fire-road extension you don't like being labeled 'Fire Road'.  Beverly Conservation trail documentation specifically refers to it as such.  "Groundswell" as a name is a bike/hike path that continues past the end of, again, a legitimate wide 'track' road.   It is again EXTREMELY common OSM practice to label otherwise un-named forest roads as "Fire Road" or "Forest Road" unless legitimate names are assigned because that is how legitimately and consistently the road is referred to locally. That said it would also be acceptable practice to have no name and assign the tag "noname".  In this case I found it referred to as Fire Road so I replicated that. I suspect that there may have been an actual road name from the 1940's but that would require quite a bit of historical digging.  If "Fire Road" is not correct, calling it "Groundswell" because it connects to a bike trail with that name is vastly more incorrect. 

Lastly and MOST importantly - the assertion that we should not use the tag to correctly to reflect the nature of the track on the ground because "sites that use OSM as their source will direct people to drive down it" is, I'm sorry, ludicrous. The improper use or respect for tags by 3rd party commercial entities should absolutely not be grounds to not use the tags correctly.  The tag definition in wiki explicitly indicates that it should not be used for this purpose.  It happens. People have GPS apps that send them into woods/fields/ponds.  However the OSM Wiki clearly states this tag is absolutely appropriate for, and I quote: "not considered part of the general-purpose road network... Roads used for access to permanent human settlements or facilities should generally not use this tag. " Bad apps are not an excuse for changing tag policy and procedure. 