There are some people that get frustrated by those who opt out of community IDs, but I will say that frustration seems to usually be directed at people who don’t stay on top of their observations and just let things that are obviously incorrect languish despite multiple people correcting them.
Personally, it doesn’t really bother me that much - some parts of mycology are in such a state of chaos anyway that it’s just not worth worrying about one person opting out when there are several thousand observations under Amanita bisporigera despite the eastern US have multiple white Amanita in sect. phalloideae. Or the sheer insane amount of red russula that get misidentified as Russula emetica.
EDIT: and I love the observation fields, there’s a few times I’ve even put a proper species under ‘provisional species name’ because it allows easy grouping of DNA-verified observations of a species that often end up being an umbrella identification. For example, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?verifiable=any&place_id=any&field:Provisional%20Species%20Name=Russula%20parvovirescens
(This one just tickles my brain because Russula are such a mess)
One thing I will say about iNat is regarding mushrooms, the computer vision just leads to some really weird misidentifications that just really aren’t related to reality because it doesn’t take into account how similar basidiocarps off different species in the same genus can look, especially when the pictures aren’t great.
Not iNat related, but it might be useful to join Fungal Sequencing Results on facebook if you haven’t - it might help you ease a little more into the community science aspect that’s evolving - plus its a better way to get a hold of Stephen if you have a mycomap question, he never answers messages on iNat
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/FungalSequencingResults)