You don't live on a road, you either live on a street or stroad. A road by definition does not have building access. Maybe your backyard faces a road, but you couldn't drive onto it with a car from there.
From the link, there is a visible laneway near the end of the merge land on the right in the picture it presents as a road.
While the cropping of the image obscures what is at the end of the laneway, it most likely does have a building. As you can see there is a 911 number plate, which usually don't get issued in Ontario unless there is a building on the property. Additionally, it appears to be a recycling bin at the end of the lane under the Canadian flag, which further indicates that a building is present.
Moreover, we can find plenty of examples of buildings, including houses, that have direct access to that road.
Take that up with the city authority. The stretch leading up to my house is labelled as a road, and barring any radical legislation it will probably stay that way until the day I die.
these aren't simple absolute definitions; go around determining what is what, and you bump into reality. There are definite roads that have a few businesses and homes on them, particularly rural roads. They are still roads. It becomes a stroad when it's trying to still be for distance-travel but has constant homes/businesses/intersections. Between that and limited-access freeways, there's a fuzzy middle that is road-enough without being a stroad yet.
Barely (it doesn't say anything about no building access).
In any case, if that is the point, it's better to say it that way, to talk about the distinction the article is making (like the sibling comment to the one I replied to) rather than saying "by definition" with some expectation that the conversation is being carried out with whatever precise set of definitions you've chosen.
Okay, great, we've really moved the conversation forward here.
The vague implication, that 2-lane state and federal highways shouldn't have driveways on them, is not and will not be the situation for the foreseeable future, so there's a pretty good case for using some nuance instead of insisting on some particular technical definition.
