It's not just me. Many other people have been doing that over the past few years. In fact, I think that adding boundary=administrative on ways because it appears on a particular renderer (Freemap Slovakia, in this case) is "tagging for the renderer" and should be avoided. Instead, the OSM Wiki suggests opening a bug report on the renderer to fix that instead.

If there is, in fact, a sign indicating its name, I couldn't find it, and it's definitely not along the main highway. Is it buried on some random intersection hidden from Street View?

Well, Russia also held a "referendum" in those four oblasts (I put it in quotes because the international community views them as illegitimate). Also, just to clarify, Russia actually 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘥 them, not just occupied them because they're at war. In the case of the latter, I couldn't find any `military=danger_area` polygon or something similar covering those four oblasts (or Kursk or Crimea) like there is in Gaza. I read that Ukraine did manage to recapture one of the four oblast's capital cities, though.
"[The four oblasts] are under occupation, not recognized by Russia. Also, it is an ongoing war." What do you mean Russia wouldn't recognize its own illegitimate annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts?

What do you mean it is not the same situation? Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 (which isn't internationally recognized) and the other four in 2022 (which also aren't internationally recognized). What's the difference here? I don't see any.

This was an option provided by Vespucci, so I decided to test it out by adding them to places I knew would match up with the data in OSM.

Hello, please don't reclassify a residential road just because it intersects the two carriageways of one road. An unnamed road that does this would be classified as a tertiary LINK, but this road is clearly not unnamed. Thanks!

changeset/173858345

Except that I have an objections: it still does exist (go to this area on Bing Maps Aerial, for example), but it's not used anymore (hence disused:highway=residential).

Okay, I guess that makes sense. I'll put that on me for misinterpreting the text. Thanks!

Hm, how about highway=primary + motorway=yes?

Done

(Also, I just realized that my proposal is still in its draft phase, partially because I needed to come up with a better tagging scheme first.)

1. You're completely right. There is a gantry right above the SPUI junction. However, by convention, the `traffic signals` node should be placed at the location where vehicles need to stop. In this case, it's before the stop marking line visible in Bing Maps Aerial. That's where I placed the traffic signal, and that is why I made that segment a motorway. I've added the gantry to the database and changed it back to secondary.
2. Thanks for sharing the info; I had no idea I had to do that first. There's already a discussion in the OSM Forum about highway classifications, so I'll likely change my tags to make more sense. Once again, thanks!

Because the key `old_name` does not apply to the sidewalk. If I had tagged the sidewalk as `old_name=Brandywine Way`, that would've meant that the sidewalk itself used to be named "Brandywine Way," which is incorrect. `street:old_name` perfectly encapsulates the situation I am accounting for here, where 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸 used to be called Brandywine Way.

If you run the validator in JOSM, it will complain that there's an "alt_name without name." If the name "2100 South Freeway" isn't signed anywhere, that can be indicated with `name:signed=no`. If there is no other name that the freeway goes by, wouldn't the nickname that locals use (which is the only name aside from the designation, which is not a name) be put in `name` (since there's no "official" name)?

Is it? Wikipedia says, "However, an eastbound traveler wanting to continue on the surface portion of SR-201 to State Street must exit on 900 West, head north briefly and then turn eastbound on 2100 South; a westbound traveler on 2100 South wishing to connect to the freeway must take an on-ramp from the surface street just before 900 West. [...] Now on the four-lane 2100 South, [...]" To me, this sounds like a continuation of SR 201, but maybe I misinterpreted what it said.

According to Wikipedia, yes it does, apparently, despite clearly not being built to Interstate standards (no physical barrier between the carriageways).

I explained this in detail on a previous changeset involving these ways. Long story short, the name of the associated street was Brandywine Way, but this segment is no longer in use, despite being completely intact otherwise.

1. This specific road section, the one I changed just now, does, in fact, have no traffic lights, qualifying it as fully controlled-access highway.
2. osm.wiki/Proposal:Motorway_classifications

...which is why I tagged it as highway:motorway=primary...

This is only an incomplete interchange. There is no way for southbound drivers to enter I-215 unless they also go to 3900 South. Similarly, northbound drivers on Wasatch Blvd have no direct access to the freeway anymore, unless they again turn onto 3900 South.