Navigate by clicking on doors or door numbers.
…the next room.
In one corner a savage animal appeared ready to leap out, roaring, rending with tusk and claw…but it was only a bit of taxidermy after all.
I suggested they might wish to hang up their coats before going on.
“How will we find them?” one asked. “We might not pass through here again.”
I assured them I would help them to return. “You can count on me,” I said sincerely. Still, they wouldn’t leave anything behind.
Opening one of the doors we made our way to…
- Images and text copyright 1985 by Christopher Manson
used with permission. [Purchase MAZE from Amazon]
Room Type: PATH Doors: 4 22 25 30 37
Solution Summary: [COLLECTION CURATED BY WHITE Raven. SEE COMMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL SOLUTION PROPOSALS.]
● The correct door is 4. [Credit: Unknown - during the 1985 contest.]
● The part of the Riddle of the Path in this room is “bear” (referring to “the animal”). [Credit: Unknown - prior to 1990.]
● On three of the doors are pairs, a pair of scissors, a pair of dice, and a pear. The non-pair (the salt and pepper shaker set) is the correct door – 4. [Credit: Slala]
● There are three somewhat hidden “four”s in this room. 4 boots in a group, 4 bear feet, and the mislabeled bottom dice that adds up to 4. [Credit: Beq S.]
● “Sinners this way” refers to door 30 (the animal is pointing behind itself), which is the incorrect door. [Credit: Hello Gregor] [Note: This is half of the solution.]
● In the text it says, ““You can count on me,” I said sincerely.” “On me” is four letters, indicating Door 4. Thus when the guide is sincerely helping when he says, “You can count ON ME.” [Independent Credit: Dnutz | White Raven] This is hinted at by the phrases bracketing the clue, “I assured them I would help them return.” and “Still they wouldn’t leave anything behind.” To anyone who has played MAZE for long it is obvious that the Guide is not going to help them return and the visitors are correct to keep their coats with them. The addition of the thought-word “sincerely” in the midst of the Guide’s deception puts the clue in high relief. [Credit: White Raven]
● The bear paws in the picture above the doors are angled oddly, the back two are acute angles while the front two feet are right angles. The shape of the feet may be suggestive of the shape of the “4″ on door 4. The shape of the left feet make the left side of the 4, while the right feet make the right side of the 4. [Credit: Aria] [See related images]
> “”"”in one corner savage animal…. rending with tusk and claw”"”"
The bears claw points to 22 which has scissors, and rending is cutting. For the bear claw to rend we are going to need to divide by 22.
> “”"I assured them I would help them to return. “You can count on me,” I said sincerely. Still, they wouldn’t leave anything behind.”"”"
Sincerely = sin-seer-ly and the guide is looking at the bear. “Still,” also refers to taxidermy bear.
“Help them to return” is about line endings. “You can count on me” is saying count on the line endings.
S+Y+S+Y = 19+50+19+50 = 88.
Now “rend with claw” and divide by 22. 88/22=4 the correct door.
“They wouldn’t leave anything behind” means it divided perfectly with no remainder.
Unfortunately, a belief that Manson intended a single step in this process is not the product of a rational mind.
My comment there was needlessly insulting. I could have voiced my skepticism without impugning your sanity. I’m sorry for this hostility.
There have been a number of times in the past when users have shown up, spammed the site with implausible nonsense, and not only refused to think critically but became antagonistic to critics. I started treating you like you were one of these people, but you haven’t been antagonistic to anyone.
I do expect that I will continue responding to your posts, and being dismissive of your proposed interpretations, even though it’s redundant for me to restate every time that what you’re claiming makes no sense. I know this is annoying, but I don’t want anyone coming naively to the website to think that your numerous recent posts represent the state of the field. I will do so more politely than I have been doing, however.
Vince is what we’d call jaded.
A few years ago, someone joined the site and spent some time posting a lot of solutions of dubious quality. Eventually they got bored and it became more obvious they were a troll until eventually they ruined the website with a complete trashfire set of posts. I don’t know further details because I wasn’t around then and the site admin showed up to manually delete all of them, which he very rarely does. Anyone who was around then can feel free to offer amendments to this story.
This person was the most malicious user I’m aware of, but it was difficult to tell some of their solutions apart from some serious solvers because the Maze community has been in a somewhat esoteric state for a while.
Manson’s recent puzzles in Blue Prince, all of which were entirely semantic, were a substantial indication to me and a few other people that this book is probably a book of word puzzles and not one of symbolic interpretation. (Note that our absent admin means all the “solutions” posted on the pages are ten years old and not nearly as verified as they’re claimed to be.) This isn’t a closed case, but I personally feel a word-based approach falls more in line with his other work, and given the quality of the Blue Prince puzzles it is a little more comprehensible that this book is 40 years old yet has no consensus on solutions whatsoever. To the best of my observation, Maze isn’t an ARG and probably was not designed with these tactics in mind.
Let me know if your approaches yield anything which could be a reasonable puzzle to design, or doesn’t require reverse engineering to solve. Your comments are getting reads. Anyway, if this puzzle book is anywhere near as bad as I think it is, stuff like this is more akin to a personal experience with a work of art than an answer to a clear-cut problem. And who are any of us to critique that?
vewatkin:
I have not received your reason/logic on why my Room 42 solution is so wrong.
The probability of 4 letters on ends of words adding to 88 – which they needed for “rend by claw” (22) to divide it neatly to 4 – is 0.212% using uniform probability distribution for a-z, and 0.6% using distribution of last letter of words in 80k most common English words dictionary. That’s p<0.006.
The time gap between my posted room 41 solution and room 42 answers was 25 minutes. I did not not have an answer for 42 when I posted 41. I knew little about this room. I just did what the words said and it immediately gave the right answer. I didn't do 200 different p<0.006 chance things until one worked.
"Rend with claw" then looking at the claw pointing at 22 is obvious. Rend/cut meaning divide because 22 is a number is obvious.
It's p “”"”‘ I assured them I would help them to return. “You can count on me,” I said sincerely. Still, they wouldn’t leave anything behind. “”"”"
This says to count on where it is returning, twice saying it applies to the bear with sin (sin-seer-ly, “still”) so use the text in bear’s sign, not main text. Then it reinforces that there is no remainder after division. These instructions are all next to each other in the same paragraph further reinforcing relevance through proximity. It’s p<0.001 with all of this.
I need p < 0.05 to get published in a scientific journal, this is fifty times better and you are not a scientific journal.
Your first response is "this is not a product of rational mind", which you took back, but then committed to continuing with your low quality nonsense replies, forever saying whatever I wrote is wrong, while providing either weak or nonexistent proof.
You need to, using logic, explain why the p “”"”" it’s redundant for me to restate every time that what you’re claiming makes no sense. I know this is annoying, but I don’t want anyone coming naively to the website to think that your numerous recent posts represent the state of the field. “”"”"
Morally I follow tit-for-ten-tat with always cooperating/giving as much as possible at start. You trashed my posts with low quality nonsense maybe a dozen times, so I have no qualms now returning that. Equally I can educate readers about the actual visible ability I have seen from you, constantly, whenever you post, going forward. Equally I will justify this as protecting readers from naively thinking you ever have or can ever get anything right.
I could never justify (let alone comprehend) saying or doing such a thing unprovoked. But in game theory doing tit-for-tat maximises long term cooperation, which is good, and I’ve given tit-for-ten-tat which is most gracious. I recall my first response to your weak near worthless criticism was to give soft flattery and said you must know so much more since you did it so much longer.
I’m an honest person. If you show, here, that you are not dumb as sack of rocks, then I won’t be forever saying you are thick as sludge (in replies to you, dozens upon dozens of times, to whatever you post, sarcastically, in order to “protect readers” from thinking they should ever listen to or consider your ideas).
So show using logic why the p < 0.001 answer, that to me was so obvious it was first thing I tried, is just a coincidence. I'm not asking for your opinion/gut/feelings those are worth little from what I've seen. It must be facts/maths/logic/reason or something like those things. Take as long as you want, use all your 10+ years of experience; you don't need to figure things out in 25 minutes. But you do need to figure it out.
Blitzerland, there’s a thing that in science is called “P-hacking”, where instead of creating a hypothesis, gathering data to test it, and then analyzing it (what you’re supposed to do), you instead first gather a bunch of data and then test many possible hypotheses using that dataset until you get a significant p-value. The big problem with this, and the reason it is considered unethical and deeply problematic, is that false positives can and do happen if you run enough tests. That’s literally what a P-value is–the probability that what you’re seeing is a false positive.
Now, saying all of that, I won’t weigh in on whether this solution could be correct. Just that a tiny P-value (which, by the way, is likely larger than you think, because the assumption that all letters have equal probability is suspect) doesn’t necessarily mean it must be so. I will also note that the solution line taken, if intended, is highly specific and completely unlike any other solution in MAZE.
Reading your second comment more thoroughly, I now realize you did pretty much explicitly say you didn’t P-hack, so I’m sorry if I made a false accusation. But I do still think the solution line is highly suspect. I don’t know how “bear claw pointing at 22″ becomes “divide by 22″, or how “you can count on me” becomes “sum the alphabetical positions of the letters at the end of 4 lines”. This makes it seem, to me at least, like you must have tried at least a few things before finding this.
Your solution uses many of the room’s elements outside of the contexts they’ve been presented. (If only the scissors matter, why do all the other pictures clue “pair”? Why is “help them to return” about line endings when it has a place in the overarching context regarding the rain? If “sincerely” means what you said it does, surely it indicates the guide and not the bear? Why not just count “on me”?) Perhaps we’re missing the trees for the forest, but this solution has certainly not been obvious to anyone else in forty years.
I will repeat what I stated before about my criteria for solutions. I believe that solutions should be accessible without reverse engineering, and most importantly I believe that a good solution looks like something someone reasonably could have designed for the puzzle. I recognize that the first solution you found in this room worked out nicely, but I fail to see an indication that it stands out from the noise.
Many other similar numerological solutions have been constructed and those comments go all the way down this page (and every other page.) Personally, I think this solution smells funny because it smells like a lot of incorrect solutions.
There are a lot of weird coincidences in science. The value of e^pi-pi is within 0.005% of 20. Even though this is very unlikely, I would not consider this an interesting experimental result, because (a) there is no indication that this connection actually means anything, and (b) it’s not replicable. Similarly, you have not demonstrated that your solution is likely to be an intended path; you have only shown that it was very unlikely for it to be there unintentionally. I suppose if we must approach this from a Bayesian context, these two probabilities are related by the probability that a real solution would be anything like this. I personally think this final probability is considerably less than 0.6%. You probably will not agree with me on this, but that’s fine. This book is up to interpretation, and this means not only am I glad you found a solution that seems reasonable to you, other people are not necessarily going to agree.
You might check the timestamps on Vince’s posts. He posted the apology after everything else.
If you aren’t interested in hearing alternate opinions and instead want to waste your time insulting people on the internet, I suppose I can’t really do anything about that.
I think the previous responses to you have been adequate, but I want to add a couple things.
1) Logic and probabilistic reasoning are not going to persuade you that your solutions are implausible, just as they played no part in convincing you the solutions were plausible. You simply imagine these things to be the kind of thing another person really might have intended, and are not receptive to feedback that this isn’t so.
2) This is a nonsensical application of probability, and although that won’t convince you of your solution’s errancy, I think it would be helpful to understand that much.
You can find numerical “solutions” for any door, in any room, when given freedom to interpret things however you wish. Nearly all such solutions would be hogwash, even by your reckoning, but they could still be formulated. Taking a part of an absurd solution, and asking, “What’s the probability this occurred by chance?” doesn’t tell you anything about the plausibility of the solution. The problem is, the probability that you can take arbitrary details and craft them into a solution of some sort is essentially 100%.
I assume you’ll think that’s a stupid or non-responsive answer to your challenge, but if you’lll think for a moment, and identify something you’d recognize as a bad “solution,” you’ll see that the chance of its exact elements arising by chance is very small. That doesn’t help us evaluate whether it’s real or not.
OMG I don’t think anyone’s mentioned this. Scissors are famed for cutting, “dice” can also mean to cut, “pear” is a homophone of not only “pair” but “pare” which ALSO means to cut, and the bear is mentioned to be “rending,” i.e. cutting things, with its teeth and claws. In this way the salt and pepper shakers are the odd one out of five.
This is a good observation.
I solved this one without looking at the answer. Didnt find the way i thought about it in here.
The bear says “sinners this way” so its not door 30, and we know that because we came from there.
But then he says “saints that way”. Which way? THAT way, he’s pointing at door 22. But the guide says u can “count on me”, so i will count on it. 2+2=4.
It’s an interesting thought process, but it seems farfetched that Manson intended the Guide’s stating “you can count on me” to indicate that you should add the digits of the number of the door the bear is pointing at–an operation that involves neither the Guide nor counting.
Could one possible clue be an elephant never (four)gets?
I think this is an intriguing suggestion. I’m not sure it’s the intended meaning, but it’s certainly one of the better suggestions.
Part of the difficulty in determining how meaningful this possibility is is that there are a lot of words that start with for/fore/four, and finding some such words (or tangentially related phrases that contain such words) might occur by accident.
Here we have a bear, which when we put “for” in front of makes a word–not an example of forbearance, but a thing that could be paired with “for” to make a word, however arbitrary its meaning.
And then, quite differently, a part of an elephant, a thing about which there is a saying that contains “for” among its syllables.
It doesn’t ultimately seem likely to me, but perhaps there is more to it. It seems worth thinking about.
There is also a lot of foot imagery which is the same length and has the first 2 starting letters as four if we wanna be more general. This seems more in line with some other confirmed solutions.
Well, be careful with what you consider “confirmed solutions.” The conclusions embraced by this website are the opinions of the creator/owner, not Christopher Manson.
This room has GOT to have a solution about *forebears*.
There’s a subtle but intriguing visual clue of misdirection in Room 42 that I don’t believe has been mentioned before. In the upper right corner, a coat rack holds a coat and top hat. At first glance it seems ordinary, but the shape of the coat’s top resembles a queen’s crown, similar to the queen piece in chess. Additionally, the way the coat drapes from one arm of the rack creates the impression of a head and trunk of an elephant—especially when viewed alongside the elephant-foot umbrella stand. This may be a visual pun suggesting “the elephant in the room.”
If the coat rack represents a queen, it’s significant that it’s positioned near the door to Room 37, a room that appears to reference a chess game. This queen imagery is echoed in Room 15, another room that connects to Room 37. There, a heart-shaped chair holds a white rabbit and a tipped top hat angled toward 37—much like the tipped hat on the coat rack in Room 42. The heart-shaped chair is likely a reference to the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland.
This interpretation fits thematically with the ominous text in Room 42:
“A savage animal appeared ready to leap out, roaring, rending with tusk and claw.”
This description aligns surprisingly well with the Queen of Hearts—known for her volatile, tyrannical behavior.
Taken together, the repeated queen imagery across Rooms 15 and 42, all pointing toward Room 37, suggests a deeper symbolic connection—possibly part of a chess-based riddle involving kings and queens.
The guide quadruplicates in this room. It’s a parable.
Here’s a simple answer: The bear points left, “bear left.”
To “bear left” means to take a left fork. Typically, the phrase is used at intersections to differentiate from “turn left,” as the driver should lean left while moving forward (as opposed to changing direction by 90 degrees).
I think this is a significant clue, because it’s given special attention in the description.
One difficulty here is that if we’re reading the bear as a sort of rebus or visual pun, and not paying attention to where it’s actually pointing, we’re looking at a bear pointing with its right “arm.”
Now, it could be that we’re not reading it for the words “bear left” exactly; more like “bear in this direction.” Then we don’t have to worry about the fact that it’s the bear’s right but our left; call it what you want, but we’re bearing in the direction the bear is pointing.
But that requires a strange level of abstraction, where we’re saying, “bear in this direction, but not where the bear is actually pointing, nor in that direction relative to the pointing bear,” because the natural reading of a pointing bear that means “bear in this direction” would be to go where it’s pointing, most likely, and perhaps secondarily somewhere else in that same direction relative to the bear. But taking the door on [our] right relative to a sign indicating “bear left” is not a natural reading of the clue.
I’d further suggest–though I may be wrong, and other old people’s experience may correct me–that the distinction between “bearing” and “turning” is one that has arisen largely in the age of GPS devices, where usage typically differs as you say, as a means of clarifying automated navigational instructions. Previously, “bear” was commonly used synonymously with “turn,” and would not have been recognized as a contrasting concept.
Guys, I noticed something that I’m not sure has been pointed out yet. Look at the dots on the dice. There are 3 sets of 1 dot, 2 sets of 2 dots, and 1 set of 3 dots. 3+1=4, 2+2=4, and 3+1=4.
Everyone has noticed there are groupings of one, two, three, and four objects in the room. So how can we know what all these differing numbers indicate? Maybe the dice are telling us that all these numbers add up to four.
The dice are not labeled correctly (the bottom due has two faces with one dot). This has to be intentional, and it draws attention to the dice. Is this the key to the room?
Is this too much speculation, or could this tie all the “random” numbers in the room together?
Well, it does seem peculiar that you would add those numbers in that way–that you would say, “There are three 1s, so let’s add 3 and 1.” The pattern you suggest is there, but I suspect it arose, coincidentally, for another reason.
I suspect these numbers are what they are as an indication to go to Room 10 in 37. That is, you have this door with the dice, the numbers add to 10, you go through the door, there are more dice, and one of the doors is 10, hey, look at that, we found a trail.
With each die showing three sides, there is no way to make it add up to ten using conventional dice, because the lowest number you can get from adding three sides of a die is 6 (1+2+3), and therefore the lowest number you can get from two dice is 12. That’s why one of these dice features two 1s. Not only is making the dice non-standard the only way to have six faces add to 10, but this specific non-standard set of numbers (1,2,3//1,1,2) is basically what you have to do to get the sides to add to 10–well, this, or make one of the sides blank, as happens on the other side.
I mean on the other side of the door. In Room 37.
I hadn’t even realized that the pictures on the wrong doors were pairs – I just thought 4 was the right door because the salt and pepper shaker was a reference to the salt shaker in 26 earlier on the path.
David Gentile, of all people, was an early detractor of the pair interpretation, and in hindsight I think he had the better of the argument (until he started offering his own interpretation). Absent the knowledge that we want to go to 4, I don’t think the natural conclusion is that salt and pepper, two condiments that are ubiquitously and idiomatically paired together, are not a pair. Rather, if we were sent in blind and told to pick which thing is not like the other things, we would probably say they are all PAIRs except for the PEAR, and say “ha ha ha that’s kind of clever, well not clever exactly but it’s funny, sort of.”
It is possible that the puzzle creator thought to himself, “Alright, now I just need to put something here, ANYTHING, so long as it is NOT a pair…oh, I know! Salt and pepper!” It wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, by which I mean in this specific book. But it’s questionable enough that I wouldn’t consider it decided.
I was going through the book earlier without having looked online for help. I assumed every door had a “pair” on it, except the “pear”, which is pronounced the same but spelled different. (A heterograph?). So yeah, I definitely think people going through the book would think the salt and pepper were a “pair”. For this book to be so meticulously crafted, it would seem odd for something so misleading to exist, no?
In room 42, 4 doors have pictures of pairs/pear on but only the door to R.4 is a proper pair. The dice are marked incorrectly; the pear is a play on word sound; scissors are referred to a pair because of the 2 cutting blades but are a single implement. Having elimiated doors 22, 25 and 37 the bear is positioned between the 2 remaining doors, Sinners are this way (pointing to 30) as we do not want to be sinners (sin = to miss the mark, to err) we therefore go to the remaiing door 4.
Hi, I’m pretty new here, although I’ve dipped in and out of Maze book for a while. My first observation diving in randomly. Link between Rooms 42/37. Guide suggests they hang up their coats, telling them sincerely he would help them return, they can COUNT on him. Hatstand is by R.37, on the door are dice showing numbers where we can count 1,2,3 and 4. In R.37 are more dice, the missing top face is 4 and the other is 2, making 42, the room to return to having made a wrong move – collecting their coats again.!
“Saints that way” presumably refers to the “pair o’ dice”–ok, fair enough.
That means “sinners this way” refers to the other direction–but does it refer to 30, 22, or both?
30 has the fruit tree and the mention of Eve–that is, suggestion of the Garden of Eden, the home of original sin.
22 has a devil’s pitchfork, and is in the trap, where some other devilish imagery can be found–that is, suggestion of Hell.
Hell and Eden are both appropriate places for sinners, and where the bear is pointing could not be less clear to me.
Although, I guess it’s a presumption, perhaps an unmerited one, that we’re to rely on the bear for our directions. The sign itself is partway inside the door to 30, so maybe the natural reading of “this way” is that it refers to 30.
I think the scissors warn you away from room 22, since scissors are dangerous.
So there’s this thing called a Doom painting, which is a painting of the Last Judgment on the wall of a chuch. Michelangelo’s version in the Sistine Chapel is the most famous example (see Wikipedia for details). Anyway, an important common feature of these is that Christ sits in the middle pointing up with his right hand, toward the left side of the painting, indicating the Saved. He points down with his left hand, to the right side of the painting, indicating the Damned.
What this does is gives us a way to unambiguously interpret the sign. The SAINTS side is on the left of the image; the SINNERS side is on the right.
BUT Manson is being sneaky here. Look at all the truncated things in this room. Boots, bear feet, a hat, an elephant’s foot. And also look at the SCISSORS, which bear an interesting similarity to the words SAINTS and SINNERS, in that they all start and end with the letter S. (Already noted of course.) Lood at the text about hanging up coats (removing outer parts), and leaving things behind. Look at the similar-looking ends of the coatrack. If you remove the ends of the words as suggested by these things, you get “AIN’T that way” (meaning Room 2, which he’s pointing to) and “INNER that way” (meaning the bear’s right, Room 4, which he’s indicating with his elbow, which does indeed lead toward the centre, our goal).
This all matches nicely with the St. Peter at the PEARly gates of PARADISE theme of doors on the right.
VINCENT YES YES I KNOW YOU DON’T HAVE TO TELL ME JUST LET ME BE HAPPY FOR FIVE MINUTES
(….”INNER that way” meaning the bear’s left, is what I meant to say.)
The “ain’t” and “inner” is clever.
Manson had a devious knack for designing puzzles loosely based on things you would later find interesting on wikipedia.
We know for a fact that Room 39 references an outside work. Why are you so resistant to the idea that other outside works could be referenced in MAZE? Yes, we can find potential references more easily now with the Internet. That doesn’t make all things we’ve found using Wikipedia wrong.
I don’t think it is ALL references, just that using the internet it isn’t hard to cherry-pick obscure tales or versions of a tale that Manson really wouldn’t have had any reason to use. Trying to use an interpretative thought process through the translation of outside works into Maze really just drags you deeper- like the jian bird thing I mentioned, there really is no chance Manson could have been thinking of that. Even if it seemed cool (marriage, rings! one wing??) it is SO easy to do. We have no reason to trust one specific painting that conviently matches up with a preferred interpretation than a different painting that points in different directions.
You chose the saints = left, sinners = right because of a painting that lined up with that interpretation. But you chose the painting because of a predisposed bias for this idea. Your evidence for the idea is based off of the idea itself.
If something like that occurs, then it probably means there wasn’t much evidence in the first place.
The thing is, it’s not one specific painting. It’s an entire well-known class of religious paintings. With a characteristic feature that seems to me to be very clearly referenced in this room. In a room that contains imagery/puzzles relating to the Bible and is connected to at least one other room like that (Adam/Eve/original sinners in 30). It’s paintings about judgment in a room connected to a room explicitly about judgment and containing a picture of scales. It doesn’t really matter to me if I convince anyone else about this idea but I don’t think it’s fair to say that my evidence is based on my idea. My evidence is that in this room there’s a figure indicating one way for sinners and one way for saints (according to his huge sign) by pointing up and down/left and right and there’s a whole class of paintings in which that also happens.
The bear… isn’t really making the same pose. That’s what’s throwing me off for the non-confirmation-bias evidence.
The bear is so ambiguous (right? left? inner? ain’t? elbow?) that it’s wayyyy too easy to just assign it to the correct door, and the fact that it’s not making the same pose kind of clouds it up for me. Like, we could make the same exact argument if the doors were inverted through arm/elbow/left/right shenanigans, and the “inner” being positive while “sinners” is not. I don’t know. I kinda like this one though, it is just hard for me to imagine this is what Manson intended.
It’s willfully and transparently dishonest to suggest that anyone here thinks that no works besides The Cask of Amontillado are referenced in Maze. But it’s still more believable than this doom painting nonsense.
To paraphrase Stephen Roberts or whoever:
“When you understand why you dismiss the nonsense of Gentile, Marianne, Thail Krider, and WBM, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
The bear is a signpost at a fork in the road. As you face that signpost there is but one way to go: you bear right because “right” is the “correct” way to go. As you bear right at the signpost you go through Door #4.