Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian 2-manifold. Define a subset $C$ of $M$ to be convex if all shortest paths between any two points $x,y \in C$ are completely contained within $C$. For a finite set of points $P$ on $M$, define the convex hull of $P$ to be the intersection of all convex sets containing $P$. It is my understanding that this definition is due to Menger.
In the Euclidean plane, the convex hull of $P$ coincides
with the minimum perimeter polygon enclosing $P$.
This does not hold on every $M$.
For example, the convex hull of four points on a sphere that do not
fit in a hemisphere is the whole sphere (this is Lemma 3.4 in the book below),
different from the minimum perimeter geodesic polygon:
The shortest path connecting $a$ and $b$ goes around the back of the sphere,
but the illustrated quadrilateral is (I think!) the minimum perimeter polygon enclosing
$\lbrace a,b,c,d \rbrace$.
My specific question is:
Q1. Under what conditions on $M$ and on $P$ will the convex hull of $P$ coincide with the minimum perimeter geodesic polygon enclosing $P$?
I am teaching the (conventional, Euclidean) convex hull now, and it would be enlightening to say something about generalizing the concept to 2-manifolds. More generally:
Q2. Which properties of the convex hull in $\mathbb{R}^d$ are retained and which lost when generalizing to the convex hull in a $d$-manifold?
(The earlier MO question, Convex Hull in CAT(0), is related but its focus is different.) I recall reading somewhere in Marcel Berger's writings that some questions about convex hulls of just three points in dimension $d > 3$ are open, but I cannot find the passage at the moment, and perhaps he was discussing a different concept of hull...
Added: I found the passage, in Berger's Riemannian geometry during the second half of the twentieth century (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2000), p.127:
A most naive problem is the following. What is the convex envelope of $k$ points in a Riemannian manifold of dimension $d \ge 3$? Even for three points and $d \ge 3$ the question is completely open (except when the curvature is constant). A natural example to look at would be $\mathbb{C P}^2$, because it is symmetric but not of constant curvature.
(Caveat: These quoted sentences were published in 2000.)
Thanks for pointers and/or clarification!
C. Grima and A. Márquez, _Computational Geometry on Surfaces: Performing Computational Geometry on the Cylinder, the Sphere, the Torus, and the Cone_, Springer, 2002.