I think it’s a valid and interesting use of iNat. People can make observations quite generally on a lot of things, or they can focus on an area and go nuts looking at the micro details. And who knows what interesting conclusions could be made from such observations, right down to someone looking at them and noticing that they never have bees on them, or perhaps they always seem to only pop up in disturbed ground, or being able to gauge how often they get weeded out in residential gardens (or even how quickly they come back after certain methods of weeding!)
If you were concerned about the impact on the community of a large volume of observations, then you could consider making your first and last for each day a photo evidenced observation, with a note in each that you have uploaded a large number of photo-less observations between them showing the many locations where it has been encountered. It will only “bother” 2-4 identifiers to get the two photo obs to RG status, and anyone pulling down the observations and reviewing them might pick up on your note and then know to also pull down your photo-less obs. For the few identifiers (like myself) that review everything in an area, then seeing the comment will let us know we can set a filter on your account name, mark all as reviewed, clear the filter and carry on as normal. Assuming of course we want to skip them.
But I must say, unless it was thousands a day, I can’t see it being a problem for anyone. At worst, a good opportunity to learn how to filter and bulk-review a subset of the needs-ID pool! If you do have a lot of photo incl obs, then you will minimise the impact if you add IDs yourself as then only one other is needed to get them to RG.