If two objects occupy the same location, they are not two objects, but are one. Location is an element of identity.

That's not right.

The oxygen and the nitrogen of the air of the room you are in occupy the same location - your room. They are not the same object.

And see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-relative/

It's never that simple.

That's not right — Banno

Good point. I was thinking too along the lines of mathematical points, meaning no two points can occupy the same two points without being the same point.

It would seem identity would be more equivalent to a definition, making it more linguistic than ontological.

Where one object ends and another begins is a matter of convention. A collision of two objects though does seem to have an ontological component beyond simple definition.

That is, when a rock hits the window, we observe a collision of two distinct objects, even if we wish to define both as a single room object.

"Touching" in common use (as in this thread) does not mean occupying the identical space, it means exerting pressure on another object.

Where one object ends and another begins is a matter of convention. — Hanover

Pretty well. But of course that does not meant that there are no objects, or that they do not have edges.

Trump brags that he grabs them by the pussy. Surely he would not lie. — Fooloso4

Grabbing sounds like aggressive wilful act of one sided touching.
But it could also mean "trying to get attention of something or someone" e.g. "How does that grab you?", or to make an impression on - Google

"Touching" in common use (as in this thread) does not mean occupying the identical space, it means exerting pressure on another object. — LuckyR

That is what it entails. What it means, in common use, is that two objects are physically adjacent, so that a surface of one is in contact with a surface of the other. This commonsense notion doesn't happen at the micro scale, so that part is strictly speaking impossible.

This commonsense notion doesn't happen at the micro scale, so that part is strictly speaking impossible. — hypericin

Impossible, or merely simplistic?