The key phrases are actually a bit longer: "route [and] other railroad right of way signs or infrastructure". 

It does not only refer to an old track alignment that is still visible, but also an old route that is still visible - yes, this is a difference. Directly north & south of the road are physical traces visible, in a way where it is clear that the route/ROW crosses the road here at this exact location. This is why I think a railway=abandoned way crossing at this road is valid mapping.
But I don't oppose cutting out the road crossing either.
(Note that such "road crossing cuttings" have already existed at the northern end of the line at Grand River Drive, but those have been deleted too (see osmcha link below)).

Note that an embarkment is a very significant part of the infrastructure.

Only because there is a single road crossing where the railway=abandoned is not clearly visible dosen't justify deleting the entire line, especially if all other parts are still clearly visible.

Calling a changeset "unquestionably vandalism" because 4 out of 180 changes are not referring to the reasoning for the revert is veeeery doubtful. (yes, the small pier is the only thing unrelated to railways, see https://osmcha.org/changesets/148681678)

Somewhat offtopic: Why is there a bridge mapped at the road crossing in question? I'm pretty certain that there is no bridge, maybe a culvert.