Please fill out the following sections to the best of your ability, it will help us investigate bugs if we have this information at the outset. Screenshots are especially helpful, so please provide those if you can.
Platform (Android, iOS, Website): Website
Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) : any
URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/362832-Rosa-caesia
Screenshots of what you are seeing (instructions for taking a screenshot on computers and mobile devices: https://www.take-a-screenshot.org/):
Description of problem (please provide a set of steps we can use to replicate the issue, and make as many as you need.):
The photos shown at te Rosa caesia taxon page there are taken from observations that used to be ID’d as Rosa caesia ssp. glauca. However, this subspecies is no longer active and the ID’s were automatically changed to Rosa dumalis. However, the photos are still shown under Rosa caesia.
The photos are actually very unfortunate to show the true Rosa caesia which, as the name suggests, should be grey because it is usually very hairy, no just a few hairs. However, the shown photos, which really are R. dumalis or subcanina, are completely hairless.
The subspecies as used on Inaturalist for dog roses are really dubious and inconsistent with the rest of the species taken from POWO. Althought the taxonomy is inconsistent across Europe, it is still at least somehow consistent in individual monographs or countries. Rosa dumalis var. coriifolia should likely really just be a synonym or Rosa caesia and Rosa dumalis var. dumalis simply Rosa dumalis, unless there is some very specific reason to accept other taxonomy, but then it should be done consistently.