In herps there is also a large segment of the identifier population which IDs to subspecies based only on range. I too find this frustrating as (at least in herps) subspecies are often not very scientifically sound (many are overturned quite frequently). Additionally, if the identification to subspecies is based solely on range, it does not add any information to the observation. The locality is already included, and anyone who is interested in subspecies could make that determination for themselves!
And as @mikepatterson pointed out, organisms (especially birds, but other things as well) do move or are transported long distances. IDing to subspecies based only on location and not on characters means that some interesting and valuable instances of long distance migrants will be missed. IDing to subspecies based solely on range can also make taxon swaps and updating more difficult when subspecies end up not corresponding to a newly described species, so there are potential costs to this.
I think this is a representation of a general trend of many IDers to be biased towards offering the more/most specific identification, even when it may not be warranted/supported by the available evidence. As @cmcheatle noted, it’s unlikely that anyone will “win” this argument due to folks feeling that the highest level of precision is always the best.
I do not, however, think that it’s inappropriate to enter dissenting ID’s (though I have heard some argue otherwise). It’s probably good form to explain why you do so. However, in an egalitarian system like iNat’s IDing, if folks who think an ID is unwarrantedly specific don’t dissent, then that voice isn’t heard within the system, and an inherent bias will result.