SHARCRASH
Hi! 🙂 
I've chosen "paved" because:
- indeed the level crossing section is made of some kind of rubber but which's value can't be found in the Wiki, maybe acrylic would fit but my general chemistry knowledge is unsure at that point.
- subsequently I don't like adding a value which is not supported yet because then the way will render like unpaved and mislead users, which is worse for sure.
- "paved" fits, it's a general value to say that the way is structurally covered and stable, analogically like building=yes.  
- that section just makes very few meters, I'm not into micro-mapping, because I don't think it's worth and it really complicates the network. I've found out countless times that contributors end up making errors because such structures require precision, correct spacial reference and correcting pedestrian relations already in OSM. Making all those repairs is a real waste of time.

I just saw now that this way is kind of duplicated because roads have the sidewalk tag. This tags is far preferable because many pedestrian relations are already recorded on the road. Just found out now there is a relation mistake on that spot. 😂

Hope these reasons satisfy you.