I personally don’t see much value in most of the subspecies identifications for the organisms I identify and observe (though I accept that in some cases subspecies IDs have value), and I prefer the current treatment of subspecies. In my min, the lack of value to the IDs is especially true in cases where subspecies IDs are based on region only. In this case, the ID adds no “information” to the identification - the location is already included in the observation data. At worst, adding subspecies ID based solely on location (ie, without any other identifying characters) could obscure true observations of different subspecies that could be introduced or maybe be changing their range naturally due to climate change, etc.
There are a variety of topics that deal with the value of subspecies IDs and how they are treated on iNat that may be of interest:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/choosing-not-to-identify-subspecies/699
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/iding-needs-id-observations-to-species-when-theyre-already-ided-to-subspecies-is-it-ok/25721
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/question-regarding-subspecies-identification/39027
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/benefit-significance-of-adding-subspecies/38461
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/why-does-subspecies-have-less-weight-in-an-id-than-a-species/28122
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/thoughts-on-subspecies/23081