I'm sorry for the mapmaker but I assume my words. We are speaking of maps to which purpose is to be enjoyable when played, not canvas to be printed in your bedroom wall.
Making a map beautiful with a lot of details isn't making of you a good mapmaker. Ensuring the map is balanced and provides an acceptable level of gameplay does....
I also agree on the fact it is probably not 100% his fault, he didn't ask to have the map in the automatch and Relic, as always has a part of responsibility in it.
But you are laying blame on the wrong person. Personally I don't think the map is as bad as you say it is, but I can understand why it's problematic to be in automatch. Just because I think it's great doesn't mean it should, and certainly not because I happen to like particular types of maps more often than others.
Certain design considerations inherently make certain (types of) maps unsuitable for automatch. This I think is the real problem behind maps like Sittard; it's not a bad map per se, it's just not the kind of map that anyone would want to find consistently playing; at least in custom matches the host chose it at will, or you entered a lobby because you wanted to play Sittard. In Automatch, you play Sittard because the game decided you should...even after you played like eight times in a row and since become sick of it. Maps like Sittard are simply not the kind of maps that fit the automatch bill. Yes yes I know veto, but then you end up playing another map you probably hate more since there are only so many maps you can veto.
The REAL problem is: Relic has no real criteria for automatch besides its apparent popularity or the reputation of the map maker. They'll put in a map that looks good and they may have actually played it a few times, but that's hardly a gauge to whether the community would want to play it.
As much as I love Sittard, it's certainly not one of the maps that should be in automatch, not until Relic adds a subsection of "Defense/ Bridge battle" category to veto.