this is the concern for the feedback loop…
For ssp with interfacing ranges, using the coloured pins and their extents on the map to support future IDs, even based on accurate IDs on the existing RG obs, is a definite feedback loop. Particularly if the edges of the range were to shift over time as global warming and human impacts on environment cause the boundary between the two to shift, it will likely not reflect in the maps if people are IDing based on the maps!
For ssp where there is a definite boundary, such as (large) body of water or mountain range, then the chances of strays appearing out of range are smaller, and the impacts in terms of the genetics between the two ssp is likely to be minimal (assuming they came from the same gene pool before their geographic split). On that basis I would only identify based on geographical range if there was a clearly well defined reason for the geographical split. Keeping them at genus level IDs is by far preferred over guessing on ssp based on a feedback loop.
We have this in NZ with fantails, there is a north island subspecies and a south island subspecies. I wouldn’t ID to ssp based on a map, but there are characters that if visible I would. There is a very real chance that the ranges could alter over time, even with the Cook Straight as the barrier. Anything even remotely close to that boundary I tend to ID at genus.
On the other hand we have a couple species of ground spider in NZ, one in the north island and the other in the south island, they look identical (it is internal genitalic differences that differentiate them), and they don’t disperse via ballooning. They can wind up in human possessions while moving between the islands, so there is the chance of a stray turning up, but the impact of a few turning up is minimal given that they are a spider that eats spiders. They are more likely to become prey than a mate, and the likelihood of the persistance of that gene incursion is minimal. Those I am happy to ID based on geography! Having said that, I am constantly on the look out for strays that turn up from the other island, and if I ever encountered any I would very much reconsider my position on them.
I don’t like this idea for the purposes of helping to identify (to ssp based on historical geographic ranges), but I do like it for comparing ranges of two taxa. It could be used to look at patterns such as “do hawk sightings decrease where spur winged plover observations increase? Does that pattern continue when you look at it over time?” and so on.
All this being said, it is not up to us to decide what iNat choose to implement! They may well have other good reasons for implementing this feature request that over-ride these concerns. I’m just clarifying why I personally see problems with the idea.