POWO supports a taxon named Taraxacum officinale, so we do too. If you think they're wrong to do so, I suggest you take it up with them, or propose that we make an exception and describe how the species should be split up and cite the papers that support that approach. If you think many of the photos identified as T. officinale on iNat cannot be identified past section Taraxum, that's a good reason to add add disagreeing identifications, not to change our taxonomy.

From Cichorieae Portal:

The name and concept of Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum is synonymous with T. officinale F. H. Wigg. in its wide traditional sense for the entire group of agamospermous polyploid microspecies and the closely related sexually reproducing diploids generally known as "common dandelions", and the use of either name can be chosen as appropriate depending on the context. ...

Kirschner & Štěpánek (in Taxon 60: 216–220. 2011), when lectotypifying Leontodon taraxacum L. (≡ Taraxacum officinale, providing the type of the generic name Taraxacum and consequently also of T. sect. Taraxacum), emphasised that the name T. officinale should be used, according to the traditional and generally adopted way, in a wide sense for the entire group of agamospermous polyploid microspecies and the closely related sexually reproducing diploids generally known as common dandelions and thus equated to T. sect. Taraxacum, but should not be equated by subsequent epitypification with a particular one of the numerous microspecies included.

T. officinale on iNat is in the broad sense, as above, and sometimes called T. officinale aggr. or species complex by some authors. Not T. officinale sensu stricto.

I see this flag now.
I think that the consequences of the typification of Leontodon taraxacum are that the group should be called Taraxacum section Taraxacum and not T. officinale which, in turn, should not be used for a given taxon as the selection of an epitype has been discouraged. So, there is no coherence in keeping both T. officinale and T. section taraxacum in the site taxonomy. Moreover, if the latter is synonymized under the first, then what to do with the other sections?