That fixes my biggest complaint about Georgism.
Take Google, for instance. What is the basis of their income? It's not the land they own or occupy. It's that they own google.com.
Where does IBM's money come from? Not from the land they own in upstate New York. It comes from their patent portfolio.
Natural resources are consumed inputs and don't generate rents (extraction rights, which are a subset of property rights in land, do); intellectual property isn't land in the usual economic sense (it is not naturally occuring, so not land; it is durable and created, and therefore capital in the classic division.) It does generate rents, but that's typical of capital goods generally.
(In modern use it's more typical to expand the use of “capital” to include land and thereby encompass durable, rent-generating subjects of property rights than to expand “land”.)
And yes, neoclassical economics classes land under capital and that is a fundamental disagreement of Georgist economists with neoclassical economists.
Perhaps, but your proposed construction (I’m not familiar enough with Georgism to know if it is the standard there) seems to be equivalent to that in equating classical categories of land and capital, but simply reversing the terminology, making durable (and thereby serving as rent-producing property) non-human factors of production, whether natural (and thus classically “land”) or created (and thus classically “capital”) all “economic land”.
In any case, there is lots of room for experimentation at the margins and any Georgist reform won't be complete or overnight. Any shift from taxing labor and capital will result in a better and more efficient economy, so don't get too caught up in the abstract end state.