One issue in the metaphysics of objects is whether distinct objects can have the same proper parts, i.e., coincide. Another issue is whether distinct objects can have the same location, i.e., be colocated. These debates are not always kept apart; colocated objects are commonly taken to be coincident, too. I argue that this is a mistake since there are at least two ways of allowing for colocation without coincidence. This means one can have an extensional mereology for both objects and locations where coincidence is banned without having to deny the possibility of colocation.