I could easily define "overland built," but it wouldn't match much of what is sold as "overland built." In my mind an "overland built" vehicle is one that has been modified to enhance its utility and comfort for long-distance backcountry travel without compromising reliability or durability. It's that last bit that frequently is ignored when the "builder" tacks on big wheels and tires, wheel spacers, racing suspension components, and enough bolt-on accessories to blow through the GVWR.
I'm glad to see that some people aren't afraid to call it like they see it.
In my view, "overland" has become a marketing/hype term and mindset. A lot of people see and read about other "overlanders" and automatically think that they need to spend thousands of $ and build up their vehicle to tackle the Simpson desert. I see all types of people running around western NY in lifted jeeps turning 37" tires and tacoma's with roof racks, lights and sliders. The thing of it is: I'd bet dollars to donuts that most of these vehicles do nothing but pavement driving for 99% of their useful lives, and that 1% of true offroading could probably be accomplished with far less modification and money spent.
Certainly, there are some people out there who are truly going to need a vehicle with extensive modification...but that's a situational decision that should be made at the individual level. As
@Jonathan Hanson points out: overland modification is for a certain purpose or functionality...and to add to his bit, that purpose or functionality can be vastly different from one person to the next. Just because you see a youtube video of some overland celeb driving a highly modified 4x4 over some remote stretch of road doesn't mean that every other overland enthusiast needs a similar vehicle for their own travels and recreation.
The fellows driving mostly stock Tundra's and F-150's to their camping and hunting spots have more overland credibility than the fellows driving highly modified Tacoma's and Jeeps back-and-forth to work every day. The former has modified their vehicle just enough to accomplish the task at hand, whereas the latter has modified the hell out of their vehicle for the sake of appearances.
In my opinion vehicle range is a big part of the utility portion of what makes an overland vehicle.
My litmus test is the last stretch of the Dalton Highway. It's 240 miles of nothing. If the vehicle can't make it with a single tank of gas it's not an overland vehicle.
Why a single tank when I can carry extra? What if I get to my destination/stopover and fuel is unavailable for some reason? That extra I will be carrying is going to get me back home.
Also, I agree the above. For all the time and money people spend on "improving"their vehicles, there is a lack of focus on vehicle range. Either people load up their vehicles to the point of degraded fuel economy or they neglect to look at range improvement options (bigger tanks, jerry cans).
Having explored some of the remote bits of eastern Canada, I'd prioritize range enhancements over sliders, lights, bull bar, ect...you can get through most parts of North America with a relatively stock 4x4, but range (or lack thereof) can come back to bite you in the butt if you're not careful.
I also wish OEM's would focus more range..the tank sizes they are putting into many of their 4x4's and trucks is woefully inadequate IMHO.