We pretend there isn't a random extra "not" in that second paragraph.

This suggestion seems like solving a rendering bug by using tagging which is specifically forbidden.

I could understand if osmarenderer implicitly assumed either cutting=yes or tunnel=yes but it seems not having a road disappear entirely seems like a bug.

I suppose it's debatable. I can think of features that perhaps you would expect to completely hide lower level roads. Obviously higher level roads for instance. Perhaps buildings? But surely not natural=cliff?

And incidentally in this junction *all* the roads would be labeled with bridge=yes (excluding the roads in the cutting past the cliff)

Yeah, sorry, I moved the points where the cutting started to not overlap the area.

Looking around i don't see bridge=yes being used for highway junctions generally. It seems unnecessary for people to understand the junction as long as the roads are labeled with layer= properly.

Actually I was wondering in a lot of places whether to use bridge=yes for the overpass or tunnel=yes for the underpass at intersections. I'm not sure which rendering I prefer.

I think I may have done it elsewhere as well. I know a few times I've noticed deleting points and finding identical ways underneath. How do you find them except by accident? How would you know whether you caught them all?

How odd. I don't even know how I would create a duplicate if I wanted to.

Thanks for fixing it.